THE   EOYAL  COMMISSION   ON 

ECCLESIASTICAL  DISCIPLINE  AND 

THE   OENAMENTS   RUBEIC 


BY  THE   SAME  AUTHOR. 


SEVENTH  EDITION. 
Crown  8vo.  Gs. 

CHRISTIANITY  IN  RELATION  TO 
SCIENCE  AND  MORALS. 


'      THIRD  IMPRESSION. 
Crown  8vo.  7s.  6d. 

LIFE  HERE  AND  HEREAFTER. 

Sermons. 

TENTH  EDITION. 
Crown  8vo.  3s.  6d.   net. 

THE 
REFORMATION  SETTLEMENT: 

Examined  in  the  Light  of  History  and  Law. 


LONGMANS.  GREEN,  &  CO.,  39  Paternoster  Row,  London, 
New  York,  and  Bombay 


THE  EOYAL  COMMISSION 


AND 


THE  ORNAMENTS  RUBRIC 


BY  THE 

REV.  MALCOLM  MAcCOLL,  D.D. 

CANON  RESIDENTIARY  OF  RIPON 


LONGMANS,    GREEN,    AND    CO, 

39    PATERNOSTER    ROW,     LONDON 
NEW  YORK  AND  BOMBAY 

1906 

All    rights   reserved 


CONTENTS 


INTRODUCTION 

Reason  why  this  book  was  written — Unconscious  bias  of  some 
of  the  Commissioners — Sir  George  Cornewall  Lewis  on  the 
influence  of  unconscious  bias — Unconscious  bias  of  judges 
attested  by  great  legal  authorities — John  Stuart  Mill  on 
unconscious  bias — Unconscious  bias  in  the  Gorham  and  other 
Judgments  delivered  by  the  Judicial  Committee — Judgments 
of  policy — Blunders  committed  by  the  Judicial  Committee — 
Eminence  in  one  branch  of  law  does  not  prove  a  judge 
competent  in  other  branches — Study  of  the  Common  Law 
may  disqualify  a  man  for  adjudicating  in  Ecclesiastical  cases 
—The  principles  and  doctrines  of  these  two  branches  of  the 
law  mutually  antagonistic — Ecclesiastical  Law  is  based  on 
authority  and  tradition ;  the  Common  Law  on  positive 
enactments  to  express  national  sentiment  from  time  to  time — 
The  former  governed  questions  of  Doctrine  and  Ritual  in 
England  till  1832-1833,  when  it  was  superseded  by  the 
Judicial  Committee — The  Judicial  Committee  is  now  '  only  a 
consultative  body,'  and  '  has  no  jurisdiction,'  yet  claims  to 
be  a  Final  Court  of  Appeal — It  suppresses  differences  of 
opinion  among  the  judges,  and  violates  a  fundamental  prin- 
ciple of  British  Justice — Burke,  Lord  Brougham,  and  the 
late  Chief  Baron  Fitzroy  Kelly  quoted  against  the  practice  of 
the  Judicial  Committee — Dr.  Stubbs  and  Mr.  Gladstone  on 
the  Judicial  Committee — The  pledge  given  in  24  Henry  VIII. 
e.  12  must  be  redeemed — Difference  between  the  King  in 
Council  and  the  King  in  Chancery — Doctrine  of  Lord  Coke 
and  of  Queen  Elizabeth — Not  the  ability  or  the  integrity  of 
the  judges,  but  their  knowledge,  is  in  question — Disuse  of 
Eucharistic  Vestments  no  proof  of  their  illegality — Recom- 
mendations of  the  Royal  Commission  of  1689 — Macaulay  on 
those  recommendations  and  on  the  policy  of  the  Churches  of 
Rome  and  England  respectively  towards  religious  movements 
— Persecution  of  the  Tractarians  a  warning  and  a  lesson— 


2072566 


vi  CONTENTS 

PAGE 

Equal  justice  must  be  ineted  out  to  all  parties — Best  remedy 
for  present  disorders — Ritualism  and  Secularism — Mr.  W.  R. 
Greg  on  the  working  classes  and  the  Ritualists — The  three 
parties  in  the  Church  check  each  other  beneficially — Passion 
for  Uniformity  mischievous— Not  Popery,  but  irreligion,  is  the 
danger  of  the  day — Predestined  mission  of  the  Church  of 
England xiii-cx 


CHAPTER  I 

Queen  Elizabeth's  Religious  Belief  and  Policy  on  her  Accession,  as 
intimated  to  the  Spanish  Ambassador — Sir  Lewis  Dibdin  and 
Dr.  Gibson  discredit  the  story 1-5 

CHAPTER  II 

The  Augsburg  Confession  and  Henry  VIII. — The  Augsburg  Con- 
fession on  the  Mass  and  Auricular  Confession — Proposed 
Agreement  on  Religion  between  Anglicans  and  Lutherans — 
Death  arrested  Henry  VIII.'s  Reformation  Policy — Henry 
VIII.  requested  Cranmer  to  pen  a  Form  to  turn  the  Mass  into 
a  Communion — The  Order  of  the  Communion  was  the  Result 
— Facts  thus  confirm  the  accuracy  of  Elizabeth's  reported 
Conversation  with  the  Spanish  Ambassador  ....  6-14 

CHAPTER  III 

A  great  part  of  Divine  Service  was  in  English  at  the  death  of 
Henry  VIII. — There  was  a  process  going  on  for  some  years 
previously  of  translating  various  portions  of  the  Latin  Services 
into  English— The  Epistles  and  Gospels  were  read  in  English 
from  the  year  1537 — Examples  of  various  Editions — Occa- 
sional Services  in  English  in  Henry  VIII.'s  Reign— The 
Primers  explained— The  Breviary  of  the  Laity— Henry  VIII.'s 
Last  Primer— Froude  and  Dixon  on  the  Primer  .  .  15-37 

CHAPTER  IV 

The  Order  of  the  Communion  and  the  Book  of  Common  Prayer 
were  drafted  in  Henry  VIII.'s  Reign -The  Book  of  1549  was 
but  the  filling  in  of  the  Outline— This  was  the  Result  of  a 


CONTENTS  vii 


long  Process — Examples  given — Statutory  authority  of  Picked 
Committees  for  ordaining  Rites  and  Ceremonies  by  32 
Henry  VIII.  c.  26 38-47 


CHAPTER   V 

Main  lines  of  the  Reformation  laid  in  Henry  VIII.'s  Reign — 
Erroneous  views  on  this  subject — The  Church  took  the  lead  hi 
repudiating  Papal  Supremacy — Examples  given — No  new 
Formulary  of  Doctrine  issued  in  Edward  VI.'s  Reign  .  48-57 


CHAPTER   VI 

Religious  Policy  of  Edward  VI.  and  Elizabeth  compared — 
Cranmer  opposed  to  Edward's  Second  Prayer-Book — The 
Constitutional  Reformers  alienated  by  the  Revolutionary 
Policy  of  the  Puritans — Elizabeth's  disapproval  of  the  Policy 
of  the  Puritans — Elizabeth's  own  feelings  and  Religious 
Policy 58-66 


CHAPTER  VII 

Elizabeth's  Political  Necessities  coincided  with  her  Religious 
Convictions — Numerical  Proportion  of  Religious  Parties  in 
1559 — The  Problem  which  Elizabeth  had  to  face  on  her 
Accession — She  steered  a  Middle  Course  67-73 


CHAPTER  VIII 

Meaning  of  '  by  Authority  of  Parliament  in  the  Second  Year  of 
the  Reign  of  King  Edward  VI.* — Judicial  Decisions — That  of 
Sir  John  Dodson  as  Dean  of  the  Arches  in  the  case  of  Wester- 
ton  v.  Liddell — Decision  of  the  Judicial  Committee  of  the 
Privy  Council  in  the  same  case — Those  Judgments  criticised 
and  shown  to  rest  on  Historical  Errors — The  Entry  in  King 
Edward  VI.'s  Journal — Two  Interpretations  of  the  Ornaments 
Rubric  and  the  Ornaments  Clause  in  Elizabeth's  Act  of 
Uniformity — Meaning  of  '  made  '  as  applied  to  Acts  of  Parlia- 
ment— The  Ornaments  Rubric  and  the  Act  refer  to  the  usage 
of  Edward's  Second  year— Historical  examples  in  proof  of 
this  .  74-95 


viii  CONTENTS 


CHAPTER  IX 

PAGE 

The  Latin  Act  of  Uniformity — Its  bearing  on  the  meaning  of  the 
Ornaments  Rubric — Dr.  Gibson's  reasons  for  considering  the 
Appeal  to  the  Latin  Act  of  Uniformity  irrelevant,  examined 
— Proof  that  the  Latin  Act  of  Uniformity  was  contem- 
poraneous with  the  Latin  Prayer-Book  of  1560,  and  also 
authorised— The  Latin  Prayer- Book  proves  that '  the  second 
year '  in  the  Ornaments  Rubric  refers  to  the  legal  usage  of 
that  year,  and  therefore  not  to  any  usage  prescribed  by  the 
Act  of  Uniformity  of  1549 96-110 

CHAPTER   X 

The  Royal  Assent  to  the  first  Prayer-Book  impossible  in  the 
second  Regnal  year  of  Edward  VI. — Evidence  adduced 
to  prove  this — Arguments  to  the  contrary  of  Sir  Edward 
Clarke,  Sir  Lewis  Dibdin,  and  other  Commissioners  examined 
seriatim — Was  a  specific  date  fixed  for  the  coming  into  force 
of  the  Act  of  Uniformity  of  1549  ? — Did  that  Act,  ipso  facto, 
release  the  prisoners  mentioned  in  its  Preamble  ? — Argument 
from  statutes  being  in  the  form  of  Petitions  examined — The 
General  Pardon  Act  proves  that  the  Act  of  Uniformity  re- 
ceived the  Royal  Assent  on  March  14,  in  the  third  year  of 
Edward's  reign — The  burden  of  proof  is  on  those  who  deny 
this 111-129 

CHAPTER  XI 

To  what  does  '  by  authority  of  Parliament '  in  the  Ornaments 
Rubric  refer? — The  Author's  view  criticised  by  Sir  Lewis 
Dibdin,  Sir  Edward  Clarke,  and  Dr.  Gibson— Authors 
appealed  to  by  Author — Dr.  Gee  on  Sandys's  assertion  that 
the  Ornaments  Rubric  authorised  the  ornaments  which  were 
used  in  the  first  and  second  year  of  King  Edward — Bearing  of 
26  Henry  VIII.  c.  1  on  the  Ornaments  Rubric — Further, 
82  Henry  VIII.  c.  26  gave  statutory  authority  to  the  Order 
of  the  Communion— The  contention  that  this  Act  was 
repealed  by  1  Edward  VI.  c.  12,  as  maintained  by  Sir  Lewis 
Dibdin  and  Sir  Edward  Clarke,  would  play  havoc  with 
English  History— The  contention  examined  in  detail,  and 
authorities  quoted  to  the  contrary — The  success  of  the 
Author's  argument  would  not,  as  suggested  by  Sir  Lewis 
Dibdin,  supersede  the  necessity  of  Acts  of  Uniformity — 
Sandys  on  '  First  and  Second  Year  '  of  Edward  VI.  .  130-159 


CONTENTS  ix 


CHAPTER  XII 

PAGE 

The  Prayer-Book  of  1549  no  exhaustive  Directory  of  Public 
Worship — Authorities  quoted — The  Puritans  Unpopular  in 
1549 — Use  of  first  Prayer-Book  never  Universal — Question  of 
Kneeling  at  reception  of  Holy  Communion  raised  by  Knox  as 
King's  Chaplain — Cranmer  on  Puritan  objections  to  the  first 
Prayer-Book — Second  Prayer-Book  of  doubtful  authority — 
Used  very  partially — Primary  Cause  of  the  Reformation — 
Authorities  quoted  in  proof — Elizabeth's  own  account  .  160-176 


CHAPTER  XIII 

Dr.  Gibson  on  the  last  year  of  Henry  VIII.  and  the  first  and 
second  years  of  Edward  VI. — Religious  changes  in  1547-9 — 
Appeal  to  Facts — The  Ritual  usage  sanctioned  in  Edward  VI.'s 
second  year— Chantries  in  1547-1548  .  .  .  177-182 


CHAPTER  XIV 

Cosin  and  other  Commentators  on  the  Ornaments  Rubric — 
Cosin  confuses  the  second  and  third  years  of  Edward's  reign, 
mistaking  1549  for  the  second  year,  and  thus  misleading 
subsequent  writers — Cosin  understands  the  second  year  to 
cover  the  usage  of  that  year — Reconciliation  of  Cosin's 
apparent  discrepancies  with  the  exception  of  his  mistaking 
1549  for  the  second  year — Another  contemporary  writer 
makes  the  same  mistake  .  .  183-191 


CHAPTER  XV 

The  Advertisements  did  not  repeal  the  Ornaments  Rubric — 
Indirect  Repeal  Explained — Case  of  Mastin  \.  Escott  upsets 
Purchas  and  Ridsdale  Judgments — Liturgical  Ignorance  of 
the  Judicial  Committee  illustrated — Courts  should  not  con- 
strue against  the  Statute — The  Advertisements  had  no 
Statutory  force — They  were  aimed  at  the  Puritans  alone — 
Evidence  of  Puritan  Leaders  and  Impartial  Historians — The 
Queen's  own  Testimony — She  explains  the  intention  of  the 
Advertisements — The  Advertisements  had  only  Episcopal 
Authority — The  Argument  summed  up — Why  the  Queen  re- 
fused her  formal  sanction  to  the  Advertisements — The  Legal 
Status  of  the  Advertisements  irrelevant  to  the  Argument,  and 


X 


CONTENTS 


why— Bishops  Home  and  Grindal  on  the  Advertisements— 
The  Advertisements  avowedly  directed  against  the  Puritans 
—Legal  Status  of  the  Advertisements  repudiated  by  the  House 
of  Lords  in  1641 192228 


CHAPTER  XVI 

Dr.  Gee's  Theory  based  on  two  documents— The  '  Device '  and 
Guest's  Letter— Summary  of  the  '  Device '—Probably 
inspired  by  Cecil— A  third  Document  also  inspired  by  Cecil 
—Cross  Currents  in  the  Eevision  of  1559— Dr.  Gee's  View 
tested  by  the  Declarations  of  Elizabeth  and  by  the  Attitude  of 
Puritan  Leaders— The  Puritans  antagonistic  to  Elizabeth's 
Policy— Cecil's  Wishes  and  Guest's  Letter— Guest's  Letter 
quoted— Cecil  and  Guest's  Letter— Dr.  Gee's  Argument 
examined — Internal  Evidence  against  Dr.  Gee's  Theory — 
The  Author's  Explanation  of  the  Revision  of  1559  .  .  229-266 


APPENDIX  A 

Elizabeth's  Conversation  with  Count  De  Feria,  the  Spanish 
Ambassador — State  of  Religion  at  the  Death  of  Henry  VIII. 
— Divine  Service  partly  in  English  in  Henry  VIII.'s  reign 
— The  Ornaments  Rubric  and  the  Order  of  the  Communion 
— The  Order  of  the  Communion  had  Statutory  Authority — 
Authority  cited — Was  82  Henry  VIII.  c.  26  repealed  by 
1  Edward  VI.  c.  12  ?— Import  of  25  Henry  VIII.  c.  19— 
It  was  confirmed  by  35  Henry  VIII.  c.  19 — Dilemma  as  to 
'  Second  Year  ' — Parliamentary  Use  of  '  Made  ' — Meaning  of 
the  '  Second  Year  ' — Does  it  refer  to  the  Usage  of  that  year  ? 
— Or  to  Parliamentary  Authority  given  in  that  year  ? — Appeal 
to  alleged  precedents — None  of  the  cases  relevant. — Onger 
and  Greensteed  Statute  not  a  case  of  usus  loquendi — Had 
first  Act  of  Uniformity  a  special  date  for  coming  into  force  ? 
— De  Feria  and  De  la  Cuadra — Elizabeth  and  the  Confession 
of  Augsburg — Guest's  Letter  and  Strype's  Suggestion — Dr. 
Gee  on  Guest's  Letter — Judicial  Decisions  and  the  Ornaments 
Rubric — Letter  of  Sandys — Meaning  of  First  and  Second 
Year — Cosin  on  the  Usage  of  the  Second  Year— Sir  Edward 
Clarke  on  the  Ornaments  Rubric  and  on  the  Assent  to  a  Bill 


CONTENTS  xi 

PAQE 

by  Royal  Commission  ending  the  Session — Sir  Edward  Clarke 
on  the  Disuse  of  the  Eucharistic  Vestments — Elizabeth's 
intention  in  1559 — Date  of  the  Act  of  Uniformity  of  1549 — 
Edward  VI. 's  Journal — Mr.  Drury  on  Ceremonies — Latin  Act 
of  Uniformity — Cosin  on  the  Ornaments  Bubric — Primers 
used  in  Public  Services — Elizabeth  and  Henry  VIII. — 
Elizabeth  and  Mary — Disappearance  of  Vestments — The 
Cope  obligatory,  yet  disappeared — Withdrawal  of  an  admission 
—General  and  Specific  Repeals  of  Acts  of  Parliament  .  269-372 


APPENDIX   B 
1  Edward  VI.  c.  12  quoted 373-375 


INDEX  377 


Errata 

Page  195,  headline  :  for  Martin  read  Mastin 

Pages,  341,  342,  344,  headlines  :  for  Date  of  her  Act  of  Uniformity  read 
Date  of  the  Act  of  Uniformity 


INTEODUCTION 


THE  Eoyal  Commission  on  Ecclesiastical  Discipline 
did  me  the  honour  of  inviting  me  to  give  evidence 
as  to  the  meaning,  in  my  opinion,  of  '  the  second 
year '  in  the  Ornaments  Rubric  and  in  the  Eliza- 
bethan Act  of  Uniformity  which  ratified  it.  On 
my  accepting  the  invitation  I  was  asked  to  send 
the  Commissioners  a  summary  of  the  points  on 
which  my  opinion  was  based,  which  of  course  I  did. 
Meanwhile  a  copy  of  my  book  on  the  Reformation 
Settlement  was  supplied  to  each  of  the  Commis- 
sioners without  my  knowledge,  and  T  thus  found 
myself  unexpectedly  cross-examined  on  various 
points  in  a  book  which  I  had  not  read  for  five  years. 
My  examination,  or  rather  cross-examination, 
lasted  five  days,  and  I  had  to  come  up  in  mid- 
winter from  various  parts  of  Yorkshire  where  I  had 
promised  to  help  some  of  the  clergy.  My  books, 
moreover,  were  packed  up,  preparatory  to  removal 
to  a  new  home.  I  was  thus  unable  to  make  any 
preparation  for  each  day's  examination,  even  if  I 
knew,  which  I  did  not,  the  questions  which  were 
to  be  put  to  me.  On  two  evenings  only  I  had  time 


xiv  INTRODUCTION 

to  consult  books  in  a  club  library,  and  verify  my 
recollections.  Under  pressure  of  cross-examina- 
tion from  able  and  learned  men  like  Sir  Lewis 
Dibdin,  Sir  Edward  Clarke,  and  Dr.  Gibson  (now 
Bishop  of  Gloucester),  I  was  induced  to  make 
confessions  of  error,  which  I  found  afterwards,  on 
examination  of  the  facts,  were  not  errors  at  all. 
In  vindication  of  my  own  accuracy,  therefore, 
but  chiefly  in  the  interest  of  justice  and  of  histo- 
rical truth,  I  made  up  my  mind  to  criticise  my 
critics  and  support  with  facts  and  arguments  every 
assertion  which  my  examiners  had  impugned.  On 
intimating  my  intention  to  the  Chairman  (now 
Lord  St.  Aldwyn),  he  made  no  objection,  but 
begged  me  to  conform  to  the  rule  laid  down  by  the 
Commission,  namely,  that  none  of  the  witnesses 
should  publish  anything  on  the  subject  till  the 
Commission  had  presented  its  Eeport.  I  readily 
agreed  to  this,  and  the  following  pages  accord- 
ingly will  not  be  published  before  the  Report  of 
the  Commission  has  been  formally  presented.  The 
Chairman  courteously  allowed  me  to  possess  a 
copy  of  the  official  report  of  my  examination,  and 
I  give  it  in  full  in  the  Appendix,  so  that  the  reader 
may  be  able  to  judge  for  himself  how  far  I  have 
been  successful  in  vindicating  my  accuracy  against 
its  impugners. 

I  am  sure  that  the  Commissioners  intended  to 
be  perfectly  fair.  But  those  of  them — a  small 
minority — who  took  the  leading  part  in  my  ex- 


Errata. 

As  the  author's  reference  to  some  of  his  examiners  on 
p.  xv  has  been  misunderstood  by  one  of  his  reviewers,  he 
wishes  to  say  emphatically  that  he  was  treated  by  all  the 
commissioners  with  great  courtesy  and  consideration.  All 
he  meant,  as  he  goes  on  to  explain,  was  that  one  or  two  of 
his  examiners  seemed  to  him  occasionally  not  to  give  its 
proper  weight  to  one  class  of  evidence  which  he  placed 
before  them ;  and  this  he  attributed  to  unconscious  bias 
due  to  imperfect  acquaintance  with  some  of  the  facts  or  to 
an  imperfect  knowledge  of  the  canons  which  govern  the 
interpretation  of  ecclesiastical  law. 


INTRODUCTION  xv 

amination  seemed  to  me  to  forget  the  purpose  for 
which  they  were  appointed,  which  was  to  inquire 
impartially  into  facts  and  present  a  report  based 
upon  those  facts.  I  was  there  by  invitation  of  the 
Commission  to  give  such  information  as  I  might 
possess  on  a  disputed  point  in  ecclesiastical 
history.  I  held  no  brief  for  any  person  or  party, 
and  I  told  the  Commission  what  I  believed  to  be 
true,  quite  regardless  of  any  private  opinions  or 
predilections  of  my  own.  If  I  were  an  Agnostic 
in  matters  of  religion  I  should  have  given  precisely 
the  same  evidence,  for  truth  and  justice  are  in- 
dependent of  personal  opinions  and  beliefs.  Yet 
I  found  myself  cross-examined  by  some  of  the 
Commissioners  as  if  the  Commission  were  a  judicial 
tribunal  and  I  a  hostile  witness  in  a  criminal 
prosecution.  They  seemed  to  me  less  intent  on 
getting  at  the  plain  facts  and  forming  an  indepen- 
dent judgment  on  them  than  on  finding  evidence 
in  support  of  a  foregone  conclusion.1  The  reader, 
however,  has  the  means  of  judging  for  himself  in 
the  short-hand  report  of  my  examination,  which 
he  will  find  in  the  Appendix.  The  great  difficulty 
in  matters  of  controversy — and  perhaps  in  religious 
controversy  more  than  in  any  other — is  to  exclude 
unconscious  bias  and  secure  what  Sir  George 
Cornewall  Lewis  calls  '  the  requisite  indifference ' ; 
by  which  he  means  indifference  to  all  considera- 

1  I  except  from  this  criticism  the  Primate,  the  Bishop  of  Oxford, 
Sir  John  Kennaway,  Mr.  Talbot,  Mr.  Prothero,  and  Lord  St.  Aldwyn. 

a 


xvi  INTRODUCTION 

tions  except  truth  and  justice.   The  passage  is  worth 
quoting  : — 

It  is  universally  admitted  that  no  man  ought  to  be 
a  judge  in  his  own  case.  But,  if  the  case  were  not  his 
own,  his  competency  to  form  a  judgment  upon  it  might 
be  indisputable.  So  if  any  political  measure  be  proposed 
which  affects  the  interest  of  a  profession  it  may  happen 
that  persons  belonging  to  that  profession,  though  pecu- 
liarly competent  to  form  an  opinion  respecting  it,  on 
account  of  their  experience  and  knowledge,  are  disqualified 
on  account  of  the  probable  bias  of  their  judgment  by  per- 
sonal considerations ;  and  that  the  requisite  indifference 
is  only  to  be  found  among  those  who  do  not  belong  to 
the  profession.  Such  outlying  persons  may  be  the  only 
impartial  judges  in  the  matter.  .  .  .  The  operation  of 
a  personal  interest  in  perverting  the  judgment  is  so 
insidious,  that  great  honesty,  combined  with  perpetual 
vigilance,  is  necessary  in  order  to  guard  against  its  in- 
fluence. Men  utterly  incapable  of  telling  a  deliberate 
untruth,  or  deliberately  expressing  an  insincere  opinion, 
are  nevertheless  liable  to  be  warped  by  personal  interest 
in  the  deliberate  formation  of  opinions.  When  a  strong 
bias  of  this  sort  exists,  their  minds,  ready  to  receive  every 
tittle  of  evidence  on  one  side  of  a  question,  are  utterly 
impervious  to  arguments  on  the  other.  Hence  we  see 
opinions,  founded  on  a  belief  (and  often  a  radically  erro- 
neous belief)  of  self-interest,  pervade  whole  classes  of 
persons.  Frequently  the  great  majority  of  a  profession, 
or  trade,  or  other  body,  adopt  some  opinion  in  which 
they  have,  or  think  they  have,  a  common  interest, 
and  urge  it  with  almost  unanimous  vehemence  against 
the  public  advantage.  On  occasions  of  this  kind,  the 
persons  interested  doubtless  convince  themselves  of  the 
reasonableness  of  the  view  which  they  put  forward ;  they 
are  guilty  of  no  hypocrisy  or  insincerity ;  but  their  judg- 


INTRODUCTION  xvii 

ment  is  warped  by  their  belief  as  to  their  interest  in  the 
question.1 

But  the  bias  of  self-interest  is  not  always  by 
any  means  the  most  powerful  bias.  Many  a  man 
who  would  instantly  repel  the  promptings  of  self- 
interest  is  easily  influenced  by  loyalty  to  a  great 
cause,  or  institution,  or  political  party.  The 
Judicial  Bench  is  in  this  country  proverbially  free 
from  the  temptation  of  perverting  justice  through 
self-interest.  But  is  it  equally  free  from  perverting 
justice  through  the  subtle  influence  of  uncon- 
scious bias  ?  Have  not  judges  been  accused  even 
in  our  own  time  of  yielding  to  this  temptation  ? 
Let  me  give  some  examples.  Lord  Selborne,  when 
he  sat  in  the  House  of  Commons  in  1868  as  Sir 
Eoundell  Palmer,  offered  a  strenuous  opposition  to 
the  transference  of  election  petitions  from  the 
House  of  Commons  to  the  judges  on  the  ground 
of  what  he  thought  the  inevitable  political  bias  of 
the  judges.  These  are  his  words  : — 

Judges,  like  other  men,  have  their  politics,  but  at 
present  cases  in  which  political  bias  might  be  supposed  to 
affect  their  minds  were  rare,  although  in  these  cases  they 
frequently  gave  their  judgments  according  to  their  politics.2 

And  is  it  not  true  that  no  general  election  has 
passed  since  then  without  accusations  of  partisan- 


1   The  Influence  of  Authority  in  Matters  of  Opinion,  p.  34. 
1  Hansard,  third  series,  cxii.  286-7. 

a  2 


xviii  INTRODUCTION 

ship   against   some    of    the   judges'   decisions   in 
election  petitions  ? 

When  the  Supreme  Court  of  Judicature  Act 
was  before  the  House  of  Commons,  and  it  was 
proposed  by  the  Government  to  give  discretionary 
power  to  the  judges  in  the  matter  of  assessing  costs 
and  in  a  few  other  particulars,  the  Bar  flew  to 
arms  in  dismay,  and  proclaimed  its  profound 
distrust  of  the  impartiality  of  our  judges  in  cases 
where  their  political  sentiments  were  likely  to  be 
strongly  engaged.  Let  the  following  extracts  from 
the  speeches  of  two  distinguished  members  of 
the  House  of  Commons,  afterwards  elevated  to  the 
judicial  bench,  suffice  by  way  of  example.  Mr. 
Lopes  said : 1 — 

When  the  proper  time  came  he  should  move  an 
amendment  that  the  bill  of  exceptions  should  be  pre- 
served. Again,  under  the  Act  of  1873  and  this  Bill,  if 
a  judge  misdirected  a  jury,  or  improperly  received  or 
rejected  evidence,  a  new  trial  was  not  to  be  granted  unless 
the  Court  before  whom  the  case  came  should  be  of  opinion 
that  the  miscarriage  of  justice  was  caused  by  the  mis- 
direction— unless  the  jury  had  been  affected  by  it. 
Judges  were  so  apt  to  think  they  were  right  when 
they  were  wrong  that  this  would  be  a  very  dangerous 
inroad  indeed.  Hitherto,  save  in  a  few  very  excep- 
tional cases,  costs  always  followed  the  event,  and  in 
no  case  was  the  successful  party  deprived  of  his  costs ; 
but  the  Bill  proposed  to  give  a  judge  absolute  discretion, 
so  that  a  judge  who  disapproved  a  verdict  might  order 
a  successful  defendant  to  bear  the  costs  of  an  action. 

1  See  Times  of  July  6,  1875. 


INTEODUCTION  xix 

Mr.  Watkin  Williams  used  even  stronger  lan- 
guage, as  the  following  extract  from  his  speech 
will  show  : — 

These  Eules  and  Orders  would  be  made  by  the  judges 
and  would  come  into  operation,  and  then  in  the  month  of 
March  or  next  Easter  the  House  might  interfere.  But 
suppose  the  judges  abolished  meanwhile  trial  by  jury. 
The  Lord  Chancellor  might  order  cases  to  be  tried  by 
a  judge  instead  of  before  a  jury,  and  when  the  matter 
came  to  be  discussed  in  Parliament  all  manner  of  proceed- 
ings would  be  taken  under  these  Eules  and  Orders,  and 
they  would  be  told  that  the  greatest  inconvenience  would 
be  caused  by  the  House  repealing  them.  He  trusted  that 
the  House  would  never  part  with  this  power.  It  might 
be  said  that  the  judges  would  never  do  these  things. 
Wouldn't  they?  The  first  thing  done  by  these  Eules 
and  Orders  was  to  abolish  the  bill  of  exceptions  which 
had  been  granted  to  suitors  by  Edward  I.,  to  prevent 
caprice  and  the  exercise  of  what  was  called  '  discretion ' 
on  the  part  of  the  judges.  The  bill  of  exceptions  was 
one  of  the  rights  of  the  suitor.  The  judges  ought  to 
administer  the  law,  and  ought  not  to  have  the  '  discretion  ' 
which  would  enable  them  to  alter  it.  Another  exceptional 
feature  in  the  Eules  and  Orders  was  the  power  given  to 
the  Common  Law  judge  over  costs.  The  power  of  giving 
costs  would  be  in  the  discretion  of  the  judges,  and  it 
would  totally  alter  the  relations  between  the  judges  and 
the  Bar.  It  was  right  that  in  Equity  cases  the  judge 
should  have  the  power  of  deciding  as  to  the  payment  of  • 
costs,  because  he  has  the  whole  case  before  him.  But 
imagine  a  case  of  libel,  or  of  interference  with  personal 
liberty,  which  would  come  before  a  jury.  If  the  judge 
took  a  view  opposed  to  that  of  the  jury,  he  might  avenge 
himself — and  it  was  necessary  to  speak  out  on  this  sub- 
ject— by  punishing  the  counsel,  the  suitor,  and  the  jury, 


xx  INTRODUCTION 

because  he  differed  with  them  in  opinion.  At  present,  if 
a  judge  manifested  caprice  or  lost  his  temper  during  a  trial, 
the  counsel  bore  it  patiently  because  they  knew  that  the 
judge  was  subject  to  the  laws.  If  he  was  wrong  in  his 
ruling  they  tendered  a  bill  of  exceptions :  and  if  he  over- 
rode counsel  they  had  the  jury  to  appeal  to.  The  Eules 
and  Orders  would  alter  all  this,  and  produce  changes 
such  as  no  one  at  present  realised. 

Mr.  Justice  Neville,  whose  appointment  to  the 
judicial  bench  has  been  hailed  with  satisfaction  by 
the  Bar  and  Press,  said  in  the  course  of  a  speech 
in  the  House  of  Commons  some  twenty  years  ago 
that — 

He  had  never  assented  to  the  argument  so  often  heard 
in  the  House,  that  because  a  man  was  made  a  judge  one 
must  treat  it  as  certain  that  no  prejudice  on  his  part  will 
interfere  with  the  soundness  of  his  judgments. 

One  of  the  ablest  and  most  learned,  and  cer- 
tainly one  of  the  most  conscientious,  lawyers  who 
ever  adorned  bench  or  senate,  was  the  late  Lord 
Herschell ;  yet  he,  great  as  was  his  admiration  of 
British  justice  in  general,  did  not  hesitate  to  im- 
peach the  findings  of  British  judges  on  occasions 
on  which  their  political  feelings  were  strongly  en- 
listed on  one  side.  In  a  debate  in  the  House  of 
Lords,  on  March  21,  1890,  on  the  Special  Commis- 
sion to  inquire  into  the  conduct  of  Mr.  Parnell  and 
some  of  the  Irish  Nationalists,  Lord  Herschell 
said : — 

I  know  it  was  said  the  tribunal  was  non-political. 
Non-political  judges  who  have  never  mixed  in  politics 


INTEODUCTION  xxi 

have  their  views  as  strong  as  other  men,  and  I  have 
heard  the  bitterest  things  said  against  them.  I  am  not 
saying  that  they  always  act  on  them,  but  when  men 
closely  connected  with  politics  and  political  life  come  into 
controversy,  I  should  consider  it  wholly  material  that  the 
case  should  not  be  determined  by  those  whose  political 
prepossessions  were  either  one  way  or  the  other.  I  differ 
from  no  one  in  admiration  of  the  judges  and  of  their 
inviolate  integrity,  but  when  it  is  said  their  political  pre- 
judices never  bias  their  judgment,  that  is  so  completely 
contradicted  by  matters  within  my  own  experience  that 
I  am  unable  to  agree  with  it.  I  maintain  it  is  in  the 
highest  degree  dangerous  that  a  party  should  select  a 
tribunal  and  nominate  its  members,  and  should  take  no 
care  that  the  tribunal  should  be  impartial  in  the  sense  of 
bias,  or  that  if  there  was  bias  one  way  there  should  be 
bias  the  other. 

Since  members  of  the  Bar  themselves,  who 
have  the  best  opportunity  of  knowing,  are  thus 
suspicious  of  the  partiality  of  judges  under  stress 
of  political  or  party  bias,  is  it  so  very  strange  that 
laymen  should  occasionally  distrust  the  partiality 
of  judges  on  questions  of  religion  ?  If,  as  Lord 
Chancellor  Selborne  said,  *  Judges,  like  other  men, 
have  their  politics,  which  are  apt  sometimes  to 
bias  their  judgment,'  may  we  not  say  that  judges, 
like  other  men,  have  their  theological  prejudices 
also,  which  are  at  least  as  likely  as  their  politics  to 
sway  their  minds  in  the  direction  of  their  prejudices  ? 

John  Stuart  Mill  has  some  excellent  observa- 
tions on  the  indirect  power  of  bias  to  warp  the 
mind  in  weighing  evidence— all  the  more  potent 


xxii  INTRODUCTION 

because  indirect,  and  therefore  unsuspected.  Bias, 
he  says,  is  not '  a  direct  source  of  wrong  conclusions.' 
If  it  were,  an  honest  man  would  detect  it  at  once 
and  avoid  being  influenced  by  it : — 

'  The  most  violent  inclination  to  find  a  set  of  proposi- 
tions true  will  not  enable  the  weakest  of  mankind  tc 
believe  them  without  a  vestige  of  intellectual  grounds, 
without  any,  even  apparent,  evidence.  It  can  only  act 
indirectly ' — and  therefore  all  the  more  dangerously —  '  by 
placing  the  intellectual  grounds  of  belief  in  an  incomplete 
or  distorted  shape  before  his  eyes.  It  makes  him  shrink 
from  the  irksome  labour  of  a  rigorous  induction  when  he 
has  a  misgiving  that  its  result  may  be  disagreeable  ;  and 
in  such  examination  as  he  does  institute,  it  makes  him 
exert  that  which  is  in  a  certain  measure  voluntary,  his 
attention,  unfairly  giving  a  larger  share  of  it  to  the 
evidence  which  seems  favourable  to  the  desired  conclusion, 
a  smaller  to  that  which  seems  unfavourable.  And  the 
like  when  the  bias  arises  not  from  desire,  but  fear.'  l 

This  unsuspected  influence  of  unconscious  bias 
is,  I  believe,  largely  responsible  for  the  extra- 
ordinary distortions  of  law  and  history  which  per- 
vade some  of  the  judgments  in  ecclesiastical 
matters  which  have  been  delivered  by  the  Courts, 
and  especially  by  the  Judicial  Committee  of 
the  Privy  Council,  during  the  last  half-century. 
Ignorant  of  scientific  theology  and  ecclesiastical 
law,  and  very  little  versed  in  ecclesiastical  history, 
they  have  regarded  the  Church  as  a  secular  rather 
than  as  a  divine  organisation,  and  have  shown 

1  System  of  Logic,  ii.  286. 


INTKODUCTION  xxni 

themselves  impatient  of  any  views  or  practices 
which  seemed  to  them  calculated  to  imperil  the 
existence  of  an  institution  so  august  and  useful. 
They  have  therefore  framed  their  judgments  mainly 
with  a  view  to  averting  the  peril.  Mr.  Gorham 
was  supposed  to  represent  the  Evangelical  party, 
and  it  was  feared  that  the  condemnation  of  his 
doctrine  would  cause  a  serious  secession  and 
jeopardise  the  Church  as  an  Establishment.  To 
ward  off  that  catastrophe  the  plain  language  of  the 
Prayer-Book  was  distorted  into  a  sense  flagrantly 
contrary  to  its  plain  meaning.  The  Prayer-Book 
says :  '  We  beseech  Thee,  for  Thine  infinite 
mercies,  that  Thou  wilt  look  upon  this  child  ;  wash 
him  and  sanctify  him  with  the  Holy  Ghost.' 
'  Almighty  and  immortal  God,  the  aid  of  all  that 
need,  the  helper  of  all  that  flee  to  Thee  for  succour, 
the  life  of  them  that  believe,  and  the  resurrection 
of  the  dead,  we  call  upon  Thee  for  this  infant,  that 
he,  coming  to  Thy  holy  baptism,  may  receive  re- 
mission of  his  sins  by  spiritual  regeneration.' 
'  Give  Thy  Holy  Spirit  to  this  infant,  that  he  may 
be  born  again,  and  be  made  an  heir  of  everlasting 
salvation.'  c  Eegard,  we  beseech  Thee,  the  sup- 
plications of  Thy  congregation;  sanctify  this 
water  to  the  mystical  washing  away  of  sin,  and 
grant  that  this  child,  now  to  be  baptized  therein, 
may  receive  the  fulness  of  Thy  grace,  and  ever 
remain  in  the  number  of  Thy  faithful  and  elect 
children.'  Then,  after  baptism :  *  Seeing  now, 


xxiv  INTRODUCTION 

dearly  beloved  brethren,  that  this  child  is  regenerate 
and  grafted  into  the  body  of  Christ's  Church.' 
'We  yield  Thee  hearty  thanks,  most  merciful 
Father,  that  it  hath  pleased  Thee  to  regenerate 
this  infant  with  Thy  Holy  Spirit,  to  receive  him 
for  Thine  own  child  by  adoption,  and  to  incor- 
porate him  into  Thy  holy  Church.' 

Is  it  possible  to  express  the  doctrine  of 
baptismal  regeneration  in  language  more  plain 
and  unambiguous?  Not  baptismal  regeneration 
in  general,  let  it  be  observed,  but  baptismal  re- 
generation in  the  case  of  every  infant  baptized.  It 
is  for  the  regeneration  of  c  this  child,'  '  this  present 
infant,'  that  minister  and  congregation  pray.  It  is 
for  the  actual  regeneration  by  baptism  of '  this  child  ' 
that  the  minister  and  congregation  give  thanks 
after  baptism.  '  These  words,'  says  an  honest 
witness,  whose  own  bias  was  in  a  contrary  direction, 
'  to  all  minds  not  sophisticated  appear  to  assert  the 
regenerating  virtue  of  the  Sacrament.' l  Yet  the 
Judicial  Committee  decided  that  the  words  just 
quoted  do  not  teach  baptismal  regeneration.  The 
words,  they  affirmed,  do  not  go  further  than  a 
charitable  hope  that  the  child  may  be  and  has 
been  regenerated.  Mr.  Gorham  taught  a  doctrine  of 
baptismal  regeneration  by  predestination  and  elec- 
tion. Not  every  child  was  regenerated  in  baptism, 
but  only  such  children  as  had  been  predestinated 
by  Almighty  God  to  receive  the  gift  of  '  prevenient 

1  Macaulay's  History  of  England,  iii.  473. 


INTRODUCTION  xxv 

grace  '  before  baptism,  *  to  make  them  worthy,' 
thus  representing  God  as  an  arbitrary  and  capri- 
cious Deity,  bestowing  and  withholding  grace 
solely  on  grounds  of  pure  favouritism.  There  was, 
therefore,  such  a  thing  as  baptismal  regeneration 
in  the  abstract,  but  it  was  impossible  to  predicate 
it  in  the  concrete  of  any  child  in  particular.  And 
this  doctrine  the  court  affirmed  not  to  be  contrary 
to  the  formularies  of  the  Church  of  England  !  It 
was  evidently  a  judgment  of  policy,  not  of  law  and 
justice.  Is  it  surprising  that  a  court  of  law  which 
could  conscientiously  reverse  the  meaning  of  plain 
language  in  this  way,  '  doing  evil  that  good  might 
come,'  should  fail  to  command  the  confidence  or 
even  respect  not  only  of  those  whom  it  wronged, 
but  of  a  large  section  of  impartial  persons  in  addi- 
tion ?  It  is  the  business  and  duty  of  a  court  of 
justice  to  declare  what  the  law  is,  not  what,  in  the 
opinion  of  the  court,  it  is  expedient  that  the  law 
should  be.  A  judicial  tribunal  has  nothing  to  do 
with  consequences,  and  when  it  allows  conse- 
quences to  influence  its  judgment  it  ceases  to  be  a 
court  of  justice.  It  no  longer  administers  law,  but 
makes  it. 

Twenty-one  years  later  Mr.  Bennett  was  tried 
on  the  charge  of  teaching  erroneous  doctrine  con- 
cerning the  Eucharist.  He  had  certainly  used 
crude  and  careless  language  which  could  not  be 
defended  on  theological  grounds.  But,  acting  on 
sound  advice,  he  discarded  his  own  language  in 


xxvi  INTRODUCTION 

favour  of  words  suggested  by  Dr.  Pusey.  '  My 
meaning,'  Mr.  Bennett  explained,  '  and  that  which 
passed  through  my  mind  in  writing  the  original 
passages,  was  precisely  the  same  as  that  which  is 
now  conveyed  in  the  words  substituted.'  And  he 
adds  : 

The  three  great  doctrines  on  which  the  Catholic 
Church  has  to  take  her  stand  are  these :  1.  The  real 
objective  Presence  of  Our  Blessed  Lord  in  the  Eucharist. 
2.  The  sacrifice  offered  by  the  priest.  3.  The  adoration 
due  to  the  Presence  of  Our  Blessed  Lord  therein. 

The  court,  though  censuring  Mr.  Bennett's 
language,  acquitted  him  of  contravening  the  doc- 
trine of  the  Church  of  England  on  the  points  on 
which  he  had  been  impeached.  But  if  his  con- 
demnation did  not  embrace  that  of  the  High 
Church  party,  with  disastrous  consequences  to  the 
Church,  it  is  probable  that  the  result  would  have 
been  different. 

Some  years  previously  a  clergyman  of  the  name 
of  Dunbar  Heath  was  tried  for  heresy  on  the  sub- 
ject of  the  Atonement.  Deprived  by  the  Dean  of 
Arches,  Dr.  Lushington,  he  appealed  to  the  Judicial 
Committee.  In  the  interim  he  took  some  pains  to 
explain  himself  to  his  diocesan  and  to  the  Court  of 
Appeal,  but  without  avail.  I  quote  the  last  para- 
graph of  their  Lordships'  judgment : — 

Their  Lordships  have  had  their  attention  directed  to 
a  letter  addressed  by  Mr.  Heath  to  the  Lord  Bishop  of 
Winchester  on  January  2,  1860,  in  which  he  states  that, 


INTRODUCTION  xxvii 

if  he  has  laid  down  any  doctrine  or  position  at  variance 
with  the  Articles  or  formularies,  he  has  done  so  un- 
wittingly and  in  error,  and  in  which  he  requests  his 
diocesan  to  point  out  in  what  respects  he  has  done  so, 
that  he  may  correct  whatever  error  he  has  fallen  into. 
Another  and  more  formal  document  has  also  been  brought 
before  their  Lordships,  in  which  Mr.  Heath  has  stated 
that,  if  it  appears  to  the  Ordinary,  and  to  the  Official 
Principal  of  his  Grace  the  Archbishop  of  Canterbury,  that 
his  language  does  contain  or  teach  a  doctrine  directly 
contrary  or  repugnant  to  any  of  the  Thirty-nine  Articles 
of  Keligion,  he  expresses  his  regret  and  revokes  his  error. 

I  knew  Mr.  Dunbar  Heath,  who  was  a  Broad 
Churchman.  He  was  a  Fellow  of  Trinity  College, 
Cambridge,  and  was  Senior  Wrangler  of  his  year. 
But  the  effort  to  obtain  that  distinction  had  appa- 
rently exhausted  his  intellectual  energy.  I  have 
seldom  met  a  man  of  a  more  confused  mind.  He 
was  always  in  the  clouds  when  he  joined  in  the 
discussions  of  a  literary  society  of  which  we  were 
both  members,  and  he  seemed  to  labour  under  an 
incurable  incapacity  to  give  intelligible  expression 
to  his  ideas.  He  was  emphatically  a  man  towards 
whom  every  possible  indulgence  should  have  been 
shown  on  a  charge  of  heresy.  He  offered  to  with- 
draw any  expressions  to  which  the  court  or  his 
diocesan  objected,  and  to  substitute  other  expres- 
sions of  which  the  court  might  approve.  But  he 
had  no  backing.  No  party  felt  itself  involved  in 
his  condemnation.  His  overtures  were  accordingly 
rejected  and  the  sentence  of  deprivation  was  con- 


xxviii  INTRODUCTION 

firmed.  Mr.  Gorham  was  acquitted  in  spite  of  his 
flat  contradiction  of  the  formularies  which  he  had 
subscribed. -  Mr.  Bennett  was  allowed  to  substitute 
orthodox  language  for  that  which  had  been  im- 
pugned. Both  had  a  numerous  and  powerful  party 
behind  them,  and  serious  consequences  might  have 
followed  the  condemnation  of  either.  Mr.  Dunbar 
Heath's  condemnation  carried  no  consequences 
except  to  himself;  there  would  be  no  secession, 
and  the  Church  Establishment  would  receive  no 
shock. 

But  in  some  of  their  decisions  in  ecclesiastical 
matters  the  Judicial  Committee  erred  from  their 
ignorance  of  the  subjects  with  which  they  had  to 
deal.  A  few  instances  will  show  the  almost  in- 
credible character  of  that  ignorance. 

In  Westerton  v.  Liddell  the  court  said  that 
the  first  Prayer-Book  of  Edward  VI.  '  spoke  of  the 
rite  itself  as  the  Lord's  Supper,  commonly  called 
the  High  Mass.'  This  blunder  betrays  ignorance 
of  the  very  rudiments  of  liturgiology. 

Again,  comparing  and  contrasting  the  first  and 
second  Prayer-Books  of  Edward  VI.,  the  court 
said: — 

Bat  by  the  time  when  the  second  Prayer-Book  was 
introduced,  a  great  change  had  taken  place  in  the  opinion 
of  the  English  Church,  and  the  consequence  was  that, 
on  the  revision  of  the  Service,  these  several  matters  were 
completely  altered  ;  the  use  of  the  surplice  was  substituted 
for  the  several  vestments  previously  enjoined  ;  the  prayer 


XXIX 

/or  consecration  of  the  elements  was  omitted,  though  in 
the  present  Prayer  Book  it  was  restored.1 

Just  imagine  a  final  Court  of  Appeal  seriously 
declaring  that  the  Prayer  of  Consecration  in  the 
Prayer-Book  was  omitted  for  a  hundred  years, 
from  1552  to  1662.  One  can  see  how  the  court 
fell  into  this  error.  In  Cardwell's  *  Two  Books  of 
Common  Prayer  compared  with  each  other'  the 
contents  of  these  Books  are  put  in  parallel  columns, 
and  the  parts  which  the  two  Books  have  in 
common  are  omitted  from  the  column  containing 
the  Book  of  1552.  From  this  their  Lordships  of 
the  Judicial  Committee  hastily  concluded  that  the 
Prayer  of  Consecration  was  omitted  altogether 
from  the  Book  of  1552.  Is  it  tolerable  that  the 
final  decision  of  ecclesiastical  affairs  should  be 
entrusted  to  a  tribunal  so  entirely  ignorant  of  the 
whole  domain  of  liturgiology  ?  Surely  it  is  not 
necessary  to  be  a  '  Ritualist '  (in  the  popular  sense 
of  that  word)  in  order  to  see  and  deprecate  the 
scandal  of  such  a  state  of  things. 

The  court  was  equally  astray  in  affirming  that 
'  by  the  time  when  the  second  Prayer-Book  was 
introduced  a  great  change  had  taken  place  in  the 
opinion  of  the  English  Church.'  No  change  at 
all  '  had  taken  place  in  the  opinion  of  the  English 

1  This  extraordinary  blunder  was  pointed  out  as  soon  as  the  judg- 
ment was  published,  and  for  the  passage  in  italics  the  following  words 
were  substituted  in  the  official  Report :  '  material  alterations  were 
made  in  the  prayer  of  consecration.' 


XXX 


INTRODUCTION 


Church.'  The  second  Prayer-Book  was  not 
the  offspring  of  the  Church  of  England.  Its 
parentage  was  foreign,  not  English.  Calvin, 
Bucer,  Peter  Martyr,  and  the  English  exiles  trained 
by  them,  were  the  real  authors  of  the  Book  of  1552. 
The  English  Church  had  no  opportunity  of  revising, 
or  of  expressing  any  opinion  upon  it.  And  even 
its  Parliamentary  authority  is  somewhat  shady. 
The  Prayer-Book  which  the  second  Act  of  Uni- 
formity sanctioned  was  withdrawn  from  publica- 
tion before  the  date  on  which  it  was  to  come  into 
use ;  and  it  never  came  into  use  except  partially 
in  London  and  the  neighbourhood.  Cranmer  ex- 
pressed a  doubt  of  the  legality  of  the  Book  after 
being  '  altered  again  without  Parliament.' l  In- 
deed, the  Judicial  Committee  would  have  found 
a  decisive  refutation  of  their  theory  of  '  a  great 
change  in  the  opinion  of  the  English  Church  ' 
between  the  first  Prayer-Book  and  the  second,  if 
they  had  only  taken  the  trouble  to  read  the  Act  of 
Uniformity  which  sanctioned  the  second  Book. 

The  preamble  of  that  Act  bears  the  following 
emphatic  testimony  to  the  unqualified  merits  of 
the  first  Book : — 

Whereas  there  has  been  a  very  godly  order  set  forth 
by  the  authority  of  Parliament  for  common  prayer  and 
administration  of  the  Sacraments  to  be  used  in  the 
mother  tongue  within  the  Church  of  England,  agreeable 
to  the  Word  of  God  and  the  Primitive  Church,  very  com- 

1  See  p.  166. 


INTKODUCTION  xxxi 

fortable  to  all  good  people  desiring  to  live  in  Christian 
conversation,  and  most  profitable  to  the  estate  of  this 
realm,  upon  the  which  the  mercy,  favour,  and  blessing  of 
Almighty  God  is  in  no  wise  so  readily  and  plenteously 
possessed  as  by  common  prayer,  due  use  of  the  Sacra- 
ments and  often  preaching  of  Gospel,  with  the  devotion 
of  the  hearers  : 

And  yet,  this  notwithstanding,  a  great  number  of  people 
in  divers  parts  of  this  realm,  following  their  own  sensuality, 
and  living  either  without  knowledge  or  due  fear  of  God, 
do  wilfully  and  damnably  before  Almighty  God  abstain 
and  refuse  to  come  to  their  parish  churches  and  other 
places  where  common  prayer,  administration  of  the  Sacra- 
ments, and  preaching  of  the  Word  of  God  is  used  upon 
the  Sundays  and  other  days  ordained  to  be  holy  days. 

For  reformation  hereof  [that  is,  of  the  prevailing  un- 
godliness, not  of  the  first  Prayer-Book],  be  it  enacted,  &c. 

The  Act  proceeds  to  enact  stringent  ecclesias- 
tical and  civil  penalties  against  all  who  shall  con- 
tinue to  abstain  from  attendance  on  Church  ser- 
vices and  administration  of  Sacraments ;  and  it 
'  charges  all  the  archbishops,  bishops,  and  other 
ordinaries  '  to  see  to  the  execution  of  the  law  in 
this  respect.  And  to  enable  them  to  do  this  effec- 
tually the  Act  gives  them  ampler  power '  to  reform, 
correct,  and  punish  ...  all  and  singular  persons 
which  shall  offend  within  any  their  jurisdictions  or 
dioceses.' 

The  Act,  moreover,  goes  on  to  say  that  such 
objections  as  were  made  to  the  first  Prayer-Book 
were  caused  '  rather  by  the  curiosity  of  the  minister 
and  mistakers  than  of  any  other  worthy  cause.' 

b 


xxxii  INTRODUCTION 

The  truth  is  that  the  second  Prayer-Book  owes 
its  origin  to  two  causes.  Edward  VI.,  under  the 
influence  of  the  Swiss  Keformers,  threatened  that 
if  Convocation  and  Parliament  thwarted  him  he 
would  use  his  royal  prerogative  in  furthering  the 
views  of  Calvin  and  his  disciples.  His  Council,  on 
the  other  hand,  supported  him  in  his  high-handed 
policy  because  that  policy  promised  no  small 
amount  of  plunder,  the  greater  part  of  which  was 
likely  to  find  its  way  into  their  own  coffers.  Vest- 
ments for  altar  and  clergy,  gold  and  silver  and 
jewelled  plate,  valuable  pictures,  and  books,  and 
manuscripts,  if  abolished  as  superstitious,  would  be 
valuable  as  plunder.  Not  only  church  ornaments 
of  great  value,  but  priceless  libraries,  the  property 
of  cathedral,  and  college,  and  monastic  institu- 
tions, were  sold  and  dispersed  among  private 
families.  The  library  of  Westminster  Abbey  was 
involved  in  the  general  ruin.  The  King  sent  a 
letter  for  purging  it  of  superstitious  books  and 
manuscripts.  *  The  persons  are  not  named,  but  the 
business  was  to  cull  out  all  superstitious  books,  as 
missals,  legends,  and  such  like,  and  to  deliver  the 
furniture  of  the  books,  being  either  gold  or  silver, 
to  Sir  Anthony  Aucher.'  '  These  books,'  says 
Collier,  with  caustic  humour,  '  were  many  of  them 
plated  with  gold  and  silver,  and  curiously  em- 
bossed :  this,  as  far  as  we  can  collect,  was  the  super- 
stition that  destroyed  them.'  The  libraries  of  Merton 
College,  Balliol,  Exeter,  Queen's  and  Lincoln  were 


INTRODUCTION  xxxiii 

similarly  destroyed.  '  The  public  library — made  up 
in  a  great  measure  of  the  books  given  by  Anger- 
ville,  Bishop  of  Durham;  Cobham,  Bishop  of 
Worcester;  and  Humphrey,  the  good  Duke  of 
Gloucester — underwent  the  same  fate.  The  books 
marked  with  red  were  generally  condemned  at  a 
venture  for  Popery,  and  where  circles  and  mathe- 
matical figures  were  found  they  were  looked  upon 
as  compositions  of  magic,  and  either  torn  or  burnt ; 
and  thus  an  inestimable  collection,  both  for  number 
and  value,  were  seized  by  the  visitors,  turned  into 
bonfires,  or  given  to  binders  and  tailors  for  the 
use  of  their  trade.' L  And  it  is  to  this  wanton 
ruin,  the  fruit  of  greed  or  senseless  bigotry,  that 
our  courts  of  justice  have  sometimes  appealed  in 
proof  of  the  illegality  of  Church  ornaments  thus 
destroyed ! 

So  much  as  to  the  '  great  change  in  the  opinion 
of  the  English  Church '  between  the  first  and 
second  Prayer-Books  of  Edward  VI.  And  the 
worst  of  it  is  that  the  judges  are  not  agreed  among 
themselves.  The  Judicial  Committee  in  the  case 
of  Westerton  v.  Liddell  declared,  as  we  have  seen, 
that  the  two  Prayer-Books  of  Edward  were 
materially  different  in  consequence  of  *  a  great 
change '  in  the  religious  belief  of  the  English 
Church  in  the  interval.  But  the  same  court  in  a 
previous  case  declared  that  there  was  no  material 
change  between  the  two  Prayer-Books  of  Edward, 

1  Hist.  v.  417. 

b2 


xxxiv  INTRODUCTION 

or  between  either  and  the  Prayer-Book  of  Eliza- 
beth.1 

Nor  is  the  Judicial  Committee  the  only  secular 
tribunal  which  is  apt  to  lose  its  way  hopelessly 
among  the  landmarks  of  history.  In  adjudicating 
on  one  of  the  issues  of  the  Gorham  case  the  Court 
of  King's  Bench  decided  that  King  Henry  VIII. 
was  '  impatient  to  marry  Anne  Boleyn  '  five  months 
after  her  daughter  Elizabeth  was  born  ;  thus  in- 
directly pronouncing  the  great  queen  illegitimate. 
The  same  court,  on  the  same  occasion,  declared 
that  Sir  Thomas  More  was  Lord  Chancellor  when 
24  Hen.  VIII.  c.  12  was  passed :  that  is,  eleven 
months  after  More  had  resigned  the  Great  Seal. 
It  made  a  similar  blunder  in  the  case  of  Lord 
Chancellor  Audley.  Sir  Fitzroy  Kelly  made  fine 
sport  of  these  historical  fictions  in  the  Court  of 
Common  Pleas.  But  are  they  not  almost  inevitable 
in  the  case  of  judges  who  are  obliged  to  grope  their 
way  in  the  dark  among  matters  which  lie  outside 
their  studies  and  professional  practice  ? 

I  have  the  highest  respect  for  lawyers,  but 
*  sutor  ne  ultra  crepidam '  is  as  applicable  to  the 
legal  profession  as  to  any  other.  A  man  may  be 
a  great  lawyer  without  being  necessarily  more 
competent  than  an  ordinary  mortal  to  sit  in  judg- 
ment on  a  disputed  passage  in  Plato  or  Tacitus, 
and  is  likely  to  be  less  competent  than  a  man  who 

1  Mastin  v.  Escott.  The  judgment  was  delivered  by  Lord  Brougham. 


INTRODUCTION  xxxv 

has  made  Plato  or  Tacitus  a  special  study  ;  and  is 
it  not  true,  though  it  may  seem  paradoxical  to  say 
so,  that  the  more  successful  a  lawyer  is  in  his  own 
profession,  the  less  likely  he  is  to  be  a  good  judge 
in  matters  outside  his  own  profession  ?  What  time 
has  a  successful  barrister  to  master  questions 
which  lie  outside  his  ordinary  studies,  and  which 
he  may  think  uninteresting  and  unprofitable  ? 
Indeed  his  opportunity  of  mastering  even  his  own 
branch  of  the  law  is  in  an  inverse  ratio  to  the  ex- 
tent of  his  practice.  Lord  Keeper  North  observed 
that  what  a  lawyer  did  not  learn  while  he  was  a 
student  he  would  be  little  likely  to  learn  at  a  later 
time.  And  it  is  related  of  Lord  Loughborough 
that,  thinking  he  would  have  more  leisure  after 
reaching  the  judicial  bench,  he  began  to  study  the 
history  of  our  law  after  he  became  Lord  Chief 
Justice,  but  had  to  give  it  up,  being  too  tired  for 
serious  intellectual  work  after  sitting  six  hours  a 
day  in  court.1  When  I  read  the  record  of  such  a 
strenuous  life  as  that  of  the  late  Lord  Selborne, 
who,  after  pleading  all  day  in  court,  his  mind  on 
full  stretch,  had  sometimes  to  sit  up  the  whole 
night  to  master  a  case,  my  wonder  is  not  that  he 
should  go  astray  on  the  question  of  the  Advertise- 
ments of  1566,  but  that  he  should  know  as  much 
of  ecclesiastical  history  as  he  did.  The  Judicial 
Committee  of  the  Privy  Council  usually  consist 
of  retired  judges,  or  judges  borrowed  from  other 

1  Auckland,  Correspondence,  i.  382. 


xxxvi  INTEODUCTION 

courts,  and  retired  officials  from  India  and  the 
Colonies.  What  can  such  men  know,  however 
great  their  ability  and  their  skill  in  matters 
with  which  they  are  conversant,  about  such  ques- 
tions as  those  discussed  in  this  book  ?  Such 
knowledge  is  not  obtained  by  the  light  of  nature, 
nor  can  it  be  acquired  in  a  few  days.  Is  it  not 
probable  that  an  ordinary  person  of  average  ability 
and  education,  who  has  made  a  special  study  of 
such  questions,  is  more  likely  to  arrive  at  right 
conclusions  than  a  lawyer,  however  eminent,  who 
has  never  studied  them  at  all  ? 

Indeed  I  am  inclined  to  think  that  the  study 
of  the  common  law  has  a  tendency  to  mislead 
rather  than  assist  a  common  law  judge  in  adjudi- 
cating in  ecclesiastical  cases.  Burke  says  that 
'no  man  comprehends  less  the  majesty  of  the 
Constitution  than  the  nisi  prius  lawyer,  who  is 
always  dealing  with  technicalities  and  precedents.' 
Whether  that  be  true  or  not  as  regards  constitu- 
tional law,  it  can  hardly  be  doubted  that  it  holds 
good  in  the  case  of  ecclesiastical  law.  The  prin- 
ciples and  doctrines  of  these  two  branches  of  the 
law  are  different,  if  not  mutually  antagonistic. 
The  principle  underlying  ecclesiastical  law  is  tradi- 
tional belief,  sanctioned  by  Church  authority,  and 
enshrined  in  the  common  law  of  Christendom. 
The  principle  of  secular  law  is  national  opinion 
enshrined  from  time  to  time  in  positive  enact- 
ments, and  therefore  changing  according  to  the 


INTEODUCTION  xxxvii 

varying  moods  of  the  national  sentiment  and 
temper.  The  former  accordingly  retains  the  old 
doctrine  and  ritual  where  it  has  not  been  expressly 
altered ;  the  latter  holds,  on  the  contrary,  that 
'  omission  is  prohibition.'  The  former  principle  is 
laid  down  very  authoritatively  by  the  Church  of 
England.  The  canon  of  1571  concerning  preachers 
enjoins  the  clergy  '  never  to  preach  anything  to  be 
religiously  held  and  believed  by  the  people  except 
what  is  agreeable  to  the  doctrine  of  the  Old  or 
New  Testament,  and  which  the  Catholic  Fathers 
and  bishops  have  collected  from  that  doctrine.' 
The  thirtieth  canon  of  1603  explains  the  rationale 
of  the  canon  of  1571.  After  defending  against  the 
Puritans  the  use  of  the  sign  of  the  cross  in  baptism, 
the  canon  proceeds  to  lay  down  as  follows  the 
general  principle  underlying  the  appeal  of  the 
English  Church  to  antiquity  : 

Thirdly,  it  must  be  confessed  that  in  process  of  time 
the  sign  of  the  cross  was  greatly  abused  in  the  Church 
of  Eome,  especially  after  that  corruption  of  Popery  had 
once  possessed  it.  But  the  abuse  of  a  thing  doth  not 
take  away  the  lawful  use  of  it.  Nay,  so  far  was  it 
from  the  purpose  of  the  Church  of  England  to  forsake 
and  reject  the  Churches  of  Italy,  France,  Spain,  Germany, 
or  any  such-like  Churches,  in  all  things  which  they  held 
and  practised,  that,  as  the  Apology  of  the  Church  of 
England  confesseth,  it  doth  with  reverence  retain  those 
ceremonies  which  do  neither  endamage  the  Church  of 
God,  nor  offend  the  minds  of  sober  men ;  and  only 
departed  from  them  in  those  particular  points  wherein 
they  were  fallen  both  from  themselves  in  their  ancient 


xxxviii  INTRODUCTION 

integrity,  and  from  the  Apostolical  Churches  which  were 
their  first  founders. 

Lastly,  the  use  of  the  sign  of  the  cross  in  baptism, 
being  thus  purged  of  all  Popish  superstition  and  error, 
and  reduced  in  the  Church  of  England  to  the  primary 
institution  of  it,  upon  those  true  rules  of  doctrine  con- 
cerning things  indifferent,  which  are  consonant  to  the 
Word  of  God  and  the  judgment  of  the  ancient  Fathers, 
we  hold  it  the  part  of  every  private  man,  both  minister 
and  other,  reverently  to  retain  the  use  of  it  prescribed  by 
public  authority. 

This  constitutional  doctrine  was  confirmed  by 
Act  of  Parliament  in  the  year  1559,  which  says 
emphatically  that  '  such  person  or  persons  '  as  may 
hereafter  '  have  or  execute  any  jurisdiction,  power, 
or  authority  spiritual  .  .  .  shall  not  in  any  wise  have 
authority  or  power  to  order,  determine,  or  adjudge 
any  matter  or  cause  to  be  heresy,  but  only  such 
as  heretofore  have  been  determined,  ordered,  or 
adjudged  to  be  heresy,  by  the  authority  of  the 
Canonical  Scriptures,  or  by  the  first  four  general 
councils,  or  any  of  them,  or  by  any  other  general 
council  wherein  the  same  was  declared  heresy  by 
the  express  and  plain  words  of  the  said  Canonical 
Scriptures,  or  such  as  hereafter  shall  be  ordered, 
judged,  or  determined  by  the  High  Court  of  Parlia- 
ment of  this  realm,  with  the  assent  of  the  clergy 
in  their  Convocation.' l 

The  reader  will  find,  by  looking  at  Appendix  A, 
that  my  principal  examiners  on  the  Koyal  Com- 

1  1  Eliz.  c.  1. 


INTEODUCTION  xxxix 

mission  brushed  all  this  aside  as  irrelevant.  They 
repudiated,  as  entirely  outside  the  province  of  their 
inquiry,  the  idea  of  a  common  law  of  Christendom 
in  doctrine  and  ceremonial  by  which  the  Church 
of  England  was  confessedly  bound  in  matters  which 
were  not  expressly  abrogated.  The  questions  put 
to  me  by  Sir  Lewis  Dibdin,  Sir  Edward  Clarke, 
and  Dr.  Gibson  are  saturated  with  that  fallacy, 
and  it  pervades  all  the  decisions  of  the  Judicial 
Committee.  In  fact  the  principle  of  interpretation 
adopted  when  the  Judicial  Committee  was  sub- 
stituted for  the  Court  of  Delegates  was  nothing 
less  than  a  revolution  in  the  English  Constitution, 
as  it  was  settled  by  the  statute  of  '  The  Eestraint 
of  Appeals,'1  which  laid  down  in  clear  and  noble 
language  the  respective  domains  of  the  ecclesias- 
tical and  civil  judicatures  and  their  mutual  rela- 
tions. Here  is  the  preamble,  which  cannot  be 
abridged  without  spoiling  it : — 

Where,  by  divers  sundry  old  authorities,  histories,  and 
chronicles,  it  is  manifestly  explained  and  expressed  that 
this  Eealm  of  England  is  an  empire,  and  so  hath  been 
accepted  in  the  world,  governed  by  one  supreme  head 
and  king,  having  the  dignity  and  royal  estate  of  the 
imperial  crown  of  the  same  ;  unto  whom  a  body  politic, 
compact  of  all  sorts  and  degrees  of  people,  divided  in 
terms  and  by  names  of  spiritualty  and  temporalty,  ben 
bounden  and  owen  to  bear,  next  to  God,  a  natural  and 
humble  obedience  :  he  being  also  institute  and  furnished 
by  the  goodness  and  sufferance  of  Almighty  God  with 

1  24  Hen.  VIII.  c.  12. 


xl  INTEODUCTION 

plenary,  whole,  and  entire  power,  preeminence,  authority, 
prerogative,  and  jurisdiction,  to  render  and  yield  justice 
and  final  determination  to  all  manner  of  folk,  residents, 
or  subjects  within  this  his  Realm,  in  all  causes,  matters, 
debates,  and  contentions  happening  to  occur,  insurge,  or 
begin  within  the  limits  thereof,  without  restraint  or  pro- 
vocation to  any  foreign  princes  or  potentates  of  the  world  : 
the  body  spiritual  whereof  having  power,  when  any  cause 
of  the  law  divine  happened  to  come  in  question,  or  of 
spiritual  learning,  then  it  was  declared,  interpreted,  and 
shown  by  that  part  of  the  said  body  politic  called  the 
spiritualty,  now  being  usually  called  the  English  Church, 
which  always  hath  been  reputed,  and  also  found  of  that 
sort,  that  both  for  knowledge,  integrity,  and  sufficiency 
of  number,  it  hath  been  always  thought,  and  is  also  at 
this  hour,  sufficient  and  meet  of  itself,  without  the  inter- 
meddling of  any  exterior  person  or  persons,  to  declare  and 
determine  all  such  doubts,  and  to  administer  all  such 
offices  and  duties,  as  to  their  rooms  spiritual  doth  apper- 
tain :  for  the  due  administration  whereof,  and  to  keep 
them  from  corruption  and  sinister  affection,  the  king's 
most  noble  progenitors,  and  the  antecessors  of  the  nobles 
of  this  Realm,  have  sufficiently  endowed  the  said  Church 
both  with  honour  and  possessions  :  and  the  law  temporal, 
for  trial  of  property  of  lands  and  goods,  and  for  the 
conservation  of  the  people  of  this  Realm  in  unity  and 
peace,  without  ravin  or  spoil,  was  and  yet  is  adminis- 
tered, adjudged,  and  executed,  by  sundry  judges  and 
ministers  of  the  other  part  of  the  said  body  politic,  called 
the  tenaporalty :  and  both  their  authorities  and  juris- 
dictions do  conjoin  together  in  due  administration  of 
justice,  the  one  to  help  the  other. 

This  settlement  lasted  in  its  main  features  down 
to  the  Acts  of   1832  and  1833  which  established 


INTEODUCTION  xli 

the  Judicial  Committee  on  its  present  basis,  and 
thereby  destroyed  completely  the  ecclesiastical 
judicature  and  put  a  purely  secular  tribunal  in 
its  place.  And,  as  if  this  were  not  enough,  the 
Judicial  Committee  has  been  so  manipulated  in 
practice  that  its  procedure  in  ecclesiastical  causes 
constitutes  a  gross  violation  of  one  of  the  funda- 
mental principles  of  British  justice.  It  now  claims, 
for  the  sake  of  policy,  a  dual  character,  which  is 
not  only  inconsistent  with  its  origin,  but  is 
destructive  of  one's  elementary  conception  of 
justice  in  addition.  It  claims  to  be  both  a  consul- 
tative body  and  a  Final  Court  of  Appeal :  claims 
which  are  mutually  destructive.  After  the  Eidsdale 
case  in  1877  Lord  Cairns,  who  was  then  Lord 
Chancellor,  finding  that  it  became  known  that  the 
judges  were  not  unanimous  in  their  decision,  issued 
an  Order  in  Council  imposing  silence  and  secrecy 
on  the  members  of  the  Judicial  Committee,  on  the 
ground  that  the  Committee  was  a  consultative 
body  and  not  a  court  exercising  judicial  jurisdic- 
tion.1 The  late  Lord  Selborne  defended  this 
rule  by  anticipation  in  a  debate  in  the  House  of 
Commons  in  1867.  His  words  are  : — 

I  now  come  to  the  Judicial  Committee  of  the  Privy 
Council.  This  is  a  very  eminent  tribunal.  .  .  .  The 
Court  undoubtedly  has  worked  well,  and  I  cannot  but 

1  See  speech  by  Lord  Cairns  in  a  debate  on  the  Judicial  Committee 
on  April  30,  1872  :  '  Beyond  all  doubt  the  Judicial  Committee  has  no 
jurisdiction,  and  is  only  a  consultative  body.'  Surely  this  raises  the 


xlii  INTBODUCTION 

think  it  in  some  respects  a  model  of  what  a  good  Supreme 
Court  of  Appeal  ought  to  be.  ...  It  gives  judgment  by 
the  mouth  of  a  single  judge,  usually  well  considered,  and 
written  or  even  printed,  and  suppresses  the  difference  of 
views  which  may  possibly  exist  among  the  members  of 
the  tribunal.  I  cannot  but  think  the  practice  of  the 
Judicial  Committee  in  that  respect  a  wise  one,  giving  the 
authoritative  judgment  of  the  Court,  from  which  there  is 
no  further  appeal,  without  the  expression  of  individual 
opinions  calculated  to  detract  from  or  neutralise  its 
authority. 

This  is  an  amazing  allegation  from  an  eminent 
Equity  lawyer,  who  became  soon  afterwards  Lord 
High  Chancellor.  If  the  suppression  of  '  difference 
of  views  '  on  the  part  of  the  Judicial  Committee 
be  a  c  wise  '  thing,  forming  *  a  model  of  what  a  good 
Supreme  Court  of  Appeal  ought  to  be,'  one  may 
ask  in  wonder  why  this  mark  of  model  wisdom 
should  not  characterise  all  our  courts  of  law.  Not 
long  after  this,  Lord  Selborne  himself,  in  con- 
junction with  Sir  John  (afterwards  Lord)  Coleridge 
and  Dr.  Deane,  gave  the  following  opinion  on  the 
supremacy  of  the  Crown  and  its  power  over  causes 
in  the  courts  of  common  law  : — 

The  Crown  is  supreme  over  all  causes  ecclesiastical  in 
the  same,  and  in  no  other  sense,  and  to  no  greater  extent 
than  the  Crown  is  supreme  over  causes  temporal,  and  by 

question  whether  the  so-called  judgments  of  the  Judicial  Committee 
have  any  coercive  validity.  How  can  the  Committee  be  '  only  a 
consultative  body'  and  a  final  court  of  supreme  jurisdiction?  But 
that  is  what  it  claims  to  be.  In  truth  there  is  no  end  to  the  labyrinth  of 
confusion  in  which  this  hybrid  tribunal  has  involved  the  course  of  justice. 


INTEODUGTION  xliii 

means  of  the  various  courts  of  law.  The  Submission  of 
the  Clergy  Act  made  it  lawful  for  the  parties  grieved  by 
any  decision  of  an  ecclesiastical  judge  to  appeal  to  the 
King  in  Chancery,  for  which  Court  of  Appeal  the  Judicial 
Committee  of  the  Privy  Council  is  now  substituted.  This 
is  an  appellate  jurisdiction. 

When  the  custom  of  suppressing  individual 
opinions  in  the  Judicial  Committee  came  before  a 
Committee  of  the  House  of  Lords  in  1872,  Lord 
Westbury,  one  of  the  ablest  lawyers  who  ever  sat 
on  the  woolsack,  declared  bluntly  that  the  practice 
which  Lord  Selborne  had  eulogised  in  the  House 
of  Commons — namely,  the  delivery  of  a  judg- 
ment as  the  unanimous  opinion  of  the  court 
when  it  was  not  so — was  *  inconsistent  with  the 
truth.' 

Lord  Cairns's  Order  in  Council  on  February  4, 
1878,  imposing  silence  and  secrecy  on  the  judges 
of  the  Judicial  Committee,  was  a  revival  of  one  of 
the  worst  precedents  of  Stuart  despotism  :  namely, 
the  Order  in  Council  of  1627,  which  suppressed 
differences  of  opinion  among  the  members  of  the 
Council.  It  is  alien  from  the  whole  genius  of 
British  justice  and  antagonistic  to  the  practice  and 
precedents  of  our  courts.  The  whole  subject  was 
treated  exhaustively  by  a  Committee  of  the  House 
of  Commons  in  connection  with  the  trial  of  Warren 
Hastings.  The  Keport  of  the  Committee,  which 
was  written  by  Burke,  and  supported  by  the 
opinions  of  the  most  distinguished  members  of 


xliv  INTBODUCTION 

both  Houses  of  Parliament  and  of  all  the  judges 
who  were  consulted  in  the  matter,  is  so  luminous, 
and  so  pertinent  to  my  complaint  against  the 
Judicial  Committee,  that  I  will  venture  to  make 
some  extracts  from  it  as  follows  :  — 

Upon  the  soundest  and  best  precedents  the  Lords 
have  improved  on  the  principles  of  publicity  and  equality, 
and  have  called  upon  the  parties  severally  to  argue  the 
matter  of  law  previously  to  a  reference  to  the  judges ; 
who,  on  their  parts,  have  afterwards  in  open  court,1 
delivered  their  opinions,  often  by  the  mouth  of  one  of  the 
judges,  speaking  for  himself  and  the  rest,  and  in  their 
presence  :  and  sometimes  all  the  judges  have  delivered 
their  opinion  seriatim  (even  when  they  have  been  unani- 
mous in  it),  together  with  their  reasons  upon  which  their 
opinion  has  been  founded.  This,  from  the  most  early 
times,  has  been  the  course  in  all  judgments  in  the  House 
of  Peers.  Formerly  even  the  record  contained  the  reasons 
of  the  decision.  '  The  reason  wherefore '  (said  Lord  Coke) 
'  the  records  of  Parliaments  have  been  so  highly  extolled 
is  that  therein  is  set  down,  in  cases  of  difficulty,  not  only 
the  judgment  and  resolution,  but  the  reasons  and  causes 
of  the  same  by  so  great  advice.' 

Upon  a  point  of  law  in  the  trial  of  Lord  Straf- 
ford  *  the  judges  delivered  their  opinion,  and  each 
argued  it  (though  they  were  all  agreed)  seriatim 
and  in  open  court* 

Again  :— 

Your  Committee  do  not  find  any  positive  law  which 
binds  the  judges  of  the  Courts  in  Westminster  Hall 

1  Here  and  elsewhere  in  these  extracts  the  italics  are  Burke's. 


INTKODUCTION  xlv 

publicly  to  give  a  reasoned  opinion  from  the  bench  in 
support  of  their  judgment  upon  matters  that  are  stated 
before  them.  But  the  course  hath  prevailed  from  the 
oldest  times.  It  hath  been  so  general  and  so  uniform 
that  it  must  be  considered  as  the  law  of  the  land.  It  has 
prevailed,  so  far  as  we  can  discern,  not  only  in  all  the 
courts  which  now  exist,  whether  of  law  or  equity,  but  in 
those  which  have  been  suppressed  or  disused,  such  as 
the  Court  of  Wards  and  the  Star  Chamber.  An  author, 
quoted  by  Eush worth,  speaking  of  the  constitution  of  that 
Chamber,  says,  '  and  so  it  was  resolved  by  the  judges  on 
reference  made  to  them  ;  and  their  opinion,  after  deliberate 
hearing  and  view  of  former  precedents,  was  published  in 
open  court.'  It  appears  elsewhere  in  the  same  compiler 
that  all  their  proceedings  were  public,  even  in  deliberating 
previous  to  judgment.  The  judges  in  their  reasonings 
have  always  been  used  to  observe  on  the  arguments 
employed  by  the  counsel  on  either  side,  and  on  the 
authorities  cited  by  them,  assigning  the  grounds  for  re- 
jecting the  authorities  which  they  reject,  or  for  adopting 
those  to  which  they  adhere,  or  for  a  different  construction 
of  law,  according  to  occasion.  This  publicity,  not  only 
of  decision  but  of  deliberation,  is  not  confined  to  these 
several  courts,  whether  of  law  or  equity,  whether  above 
or  at  nisi  prius,  but  it  prevails  where  they  are  assembled, 
in  the  Exchequer  Chamber  or  at  Serjeants'  Inn,  or 
wherever  matters  came  before  the  judges  collectively  for 
consultation  and  revision.  It  seems  to  your  Committee 
to  be  moulded  in  the  essential  frame  and  constitution  of 
British  judicature.  Your  Committee  conceives  that  the 
English  jurisprudence  has  not  any  other  sure  foundation, 
nor  consequently  the  lives  and  property  of  the  subject  any 
sure  hold,  but  in  the  maxims,  rules,  and  principles,  and 
juridical  traditionary  line  of  decisions  contained  in  the 
notes  taken,  and  from  time  to  time  published  (mostly 
under  the  sanction  of  the  judges),  called  reports. 


xlvi  INTRODUCTION 

Again : — 

To  give  judgment  privately  is  to  put  an  end  to  reports, 
and  to  put  an  end  to  reports  is  to  put  an  end  to  the  law 
of  England.  It  was  fortunate  for  the  Constitution  of  this 
Kingdom  that,  in  the  judicial  proceedings  in  the  case  of 
shipmoney,  the  judges  did  not  venture  to  depart  from 
the  ancient  course.  They  gave  and  they  argued  their 
judgment  in  open  court.  Their  reasons  were  publicly 
given,  and  the  reasons  assigned  for  their  judgment  took 
away  all  its  authority.1  The  great  historian,  Clarendon, 
at  that  time  a  young  lawyer,  has  told  us  that  the  judges 
gave  as  law  from  the  bench  what  every  man  in  the  hall 
knew  not  to  be  law. 

Once  more : — 

Your  Committee  is  of  opinion  that  nothing  better 
could  be  devised  by  human  wisdom  than  argued  judgments, 
publicly  delivered,  for  preserving  unbroken  the  great 
traditionary  body  of  the  law,  and  for  marking,  whilst  that 
great  body  remained  unaltered,  every  variation  in  the 
appreciation  and  the  construction  of  particular  parts ;  for 
pointing  out  the  ground  of  each  variation,  and  for  enabling 
the  learned  of  the  Bar,  and  all  intelligent  laymen,  to 
distinguish  those  changes  made  for  the  advancement  of 
a  more  solid,  equitable,  and  substantial  justice,  according 
to  the  variable  nature  of  human  affairs,  a  progressive 
experience  and  the  improvement  of  moral  philosophy, 
from  those  hazardous  changes  in  any  of  the  ancient 
opinions  and  decisions  which  may  arise  from  ignorance, 
from  levity,  from  false  refinement,  from  a  spirit  of  inno- 

1  I  believe  that  I  have  shown  in  the  course  of  this  work  that  this 
criticism  is  exactly  applicable  to  the  ecclesiastical  judgments  of  the 
Judicial  Committee  in  so  far  as  the  reasons  for  them  have  been 
published. 


INTRODUCTION  xlvii 

vation,   or  from  other  motives  of  a  nature  not  more 
justifiable.1 

Previously  to  Lord  Cairns's  Order  in  Council 
forbidding  the  publication  of  any  differences  of 
opinion  on  the  part  of  the  judges  in  the  Judicial 
Committee,  it  was  optional  with  that  court  to  pub- 
lish such  differences  or  not.  Even  that  was  most 
objectionable,  and  was  severely  condemned  by 
Lord  St.  Leonards,  whom  the  late  Chief  Baron 
Fitzroy  Kelly,  in  his  trenchant  criticism  on  Lord 
Cairns's  Order,  calls  '  the  most  learned  and  able 
lawyer  of  this  (the  nineteenth)  century,  and  the 
judge  of  the  longest  experience  among  the  judges 
of  the  present  age.'  The  Chief  Baron  quotes  the 
following  solemn  declaration  by  Lord  St.  Leonards  : 

Now,  for  myself,  I  would  not  sit  upon  any  appeal  or 
any  court  in  the  kingdom  if  I  were  not  at  liberty  to 
express  the  opinion  which  I  entertain  ;  and  I  am  clearly 
of  opinion  that  the  law  never  can  flourish  as  a  science 
unless  the  judge  is  permitted  to  do  so.  ...  Could  that 
be  endured  ?  Would  any  man  do  it  ?  Ought  it  to  be 
done? 

The  Chief  Baron  adds  :  '  The  learned  lord  kept 
his  word  to  the  end  of  his  life,  and  never  once,  after 
delivery  of  these  opinions,  sat  as  a  Privy  Coun- 
cillor in  the  Judicial  Committee.  I  would  further 
say  that  he  often  expressed  these  sentiments,  in 
reference  to  the  Judicial  Committee,  in  private 

1  Burke's  Works,  viii.  55,  56,  63,  64,  Rivington's  edition. 

C 


xlviii  INTKODUCTION 

conversation  with  myself,  during  the  last  ten  years 
of  his  life.' 1 

The  last — unfortunately,  as  I  presume  to  think 
— of  the  Chief  Barons  quotes  Lord  Brougham, 
who  established  the  Judicial  Committee,  as  saying 
that  the  advocates  of  the  suppression  of  the  differ- 
ences of  opinion  on  the  part  of  the  judges  '  forget 
the  compensation  which  is  afforded  in  respect 
of  responsibility  itself  from  the  watchful  eyes  of 
brother  judges  ;  a  tribunal  fully  more  formidable 
than  the  public  or  even  the  Bar,  and  a  tribunal 
whose  members  must  needs  know  a  great  deal 
more  intimately  than  any  spectators  the  errors 
and  negligences  of  each  other  .  .  .  The  same 
reasoners  forget  the  security  which  is  afforded, 
and  may  always  be  obtained,  against  improper 
judicial  appointments,  or  inefficient  judicial  exer- 
tions, by  requiring  each  judge  to  give,  either 
always  or  in  rotation,  his  reasons,  and  still  more 
by  requiring  on  great  questions  that  these  reasons 
be  reduced  to  writing.'  This  course  of  proceeding, 
which  he  recommends,  was  adopted  while  Lord 
Brougham  presided  over  the  Judicial  Committee. 
Where  a  difference  of  opinion  existed  it  was  always 
avowed.  And  therefore,  as  Chief  Baron  Fitzroy 
Kelly  says,  '  Lord  Brougham  must  have  agreed 
with  Lord  Westbury  that  to  state  a  judgment  or 
opinion  to  be  the  judgment  or  opinion  of  their 

1  '  A  Letter  to  the  Lord  High  Chancellor  upon  the  late  Order  in 
Council  of  the  4th  of  February,  1878,'  p.  49. 


INTRODUCTION  xlix 

lordships  is  really  not  consistent  with  the  truth, 
unless  it  be  unanimous  ;  and  when  there  is  a  diffe- 
rence of  opinion  that  it  can  be  described  only  as 
the  judgment  of  "the  majority."  And  if  this  be  so, 
to  declare  that  a  judgment  is  the  judgment  of  their 
lordships  is  really  to  declare,  if  the  words  are  read 
and  interpreted  according  to  their  natural  mean- 
ing, that  which  is  absolutely  untrue  in  fact.  And 
though  indeed  men  may  differ  as  to  the  meaning  of 
words,  if  the  Lord  Chancellor  of  the  day  happens 
himself  to  dissent  from  the  judgment  which  he  is 
called  upon  to  pronounce  as  the  organ  and  chief  of 
the  court,  I  cannot  understand  how  he  can  declare 
with  a  safe  conscience  that  "  their  lordships  "  (and 
not  a  majority  of  their  lordships)  "  are  of  opinion 
that  the  appeal  "  (as  it  may  be)  "  should  be  allowed 
or  dismissed." 

In  accordance  with  these  sentiments  Lord 
Chief  Baron  Kelly  repudiated  with  indignation 
Lord  Chancellor  Cairns's  Order  in  Council,  accusing 
of  violation  of  oath  and  of  duty  to  the  Sovereign 
any  Privy  Councillor  who  divulged  differences  of 
opinion  among  the  members  of  the  court.  After 
declaring  that  Lord  Cairns's  Order  in  Council  in 
effect  '  stigmatised  as  the  violators  of  their  duty 
and  of  their  oaths '  '  no  less  than  seven  prelates, 
including  in  their  number  five  archbishops,  and 
nineteen  judges,  including  five  who  had  attained 
the  office  of  Lord  High  Chancellor,'  the  Chief 
Baron  proceeds  : — 

c2 


1  INTBODUCTION 

My  Lord,  I  myself  should  shrink  with  unfeigned 
humility  from  even  the  mention  of  my  name  in  the  same 
category  with  these  eminent  and  distinguished  personages, 
but  I,  who  must  upon  the  same  ground  have  been  guilty 
likewise  of  this  violation  of  my  duty  to  my  Sovereign  and 
my  oath  of  secrecy  in  my  office  of  Privy  Councillor,  have 
to  defend  myself  against  the  stigma  thus  cast  upon  me, 
and  the  dishonour  which  it  would  attach  to  my  name ; 
for  I  have  at  many  times  and  in  many  places,  since  the 
judgment  in  the  Eidsdale  case  was  delivered,  freely, 
openly,  and  publicly  stated  that  I,  with  two  other  Privy 
Councillors  (one  of  them  perhaps  the  most  learned  and 
experienced  in  ecclesiastical  causes  among  living  men), 
and  without  ever  dreaming  that  I  was  violating  my  duty 
to  my  Sovereign  and  my  oath  of  office — that  I  and  these 
two  eminent  Privy  Councillors  had  dissented  from  the 
judgment  of  the  majority. 

The  question  is  a  very  important  one,  and  may 
become  a  very  acute  one  on  the  publication  of  the 
Report  of  the  Royal  Commission  on  Ecclesias- 
tical Discipline.  I  offer  no  apology,  therefore,  for 
making  one  more  quotation  from  Chief  Baron 
Kelly's  pamphlet.  He  was  leading  counsel  in  the 
case  of  Westerton  v.  Liddell,  and  had  studied  the 
question  with  great  care,  as  I  know  personally,  for 
I  enjoyed  the  privilege  of  his  friendship  and  often 
talked  those  matters  over  with  him.  Like  all  men 
who  plead  for  justice  to  an  unpopular  party,  Lord 
Chief  Baron  Kelly  was  himself  accused  of  being 
a  Ritualist ;  to  which  he  made  reply  :  '  I  am  quite 
aware  of  the  prejudice  which  not  unnaturally 
exists  in  the  minds  of  many  eminent  and  excellent 


INTEODUCTION  li 

persons  against  what  is  called  "  Ritualism."  I 
have  myself  been  called  a  "  Ritualist  "  ;  but  I  arn 
no  more  a  Ritualist  than  I  am  a  Mohammedan  or 
a  Russian.  I  have  seen  with  regret  that  in  some 
churches  what  are  called  the  High  Church  clergy 
have  indulged  in  excesses,  in  what  I  myself  have 
thought  mere  matters  of  form,  in  the  performance 
of  divine  service,'  with  more  to  the  same  effect. 
But  he  failed  to  see  that  the  unpopularity  of  certain 
practices  and  ceremonies  had  anything  whatever 
to  do  with  their  legality ;  and  he  recognised  the 
insuperable  difficulties  which  the  judgments  of  the 
Judicial  Committee  created  for  the  clergy.  For 
instance  : — 

But  here  a  new  danger  arises.  Let  me  again  take 
the  case  of  Mr.  Ridsdale  as  example.  He  finds  from  the 
judgment  of  their  lordships  that  it  is  unlawful  to  wear 
the  vestments  mentioned  in  the  alleged  Rubric,  and  is 
desirous  of  knowing  upon  what  authority  that  judgment 
rests,  inasmuch  as  he  knows  that  it  is  his  duty,  on  the 
one  hand,  to  obey  the  law,  and  he  feels  that  it  is  his  duty 
also,  and  he  believes  a  higher  duty,  to  observe  the  Articles 
of  Religion  and  conform  in  all  things  to  the  true  doctrines 
of  the  Church  of  England  in  the  performance  of  Divine 
Service ;  and  he  conscientiously  believes  that  it  is  his 
duty  to  wear  these  vestments  at  a  particular  period  of  the 
Service,  on  these  grounds.  Some  twelve  years  ago  the 
questions  about  these  vestments  having  arisen,  but  having 
as  he  and  many  other  Ministers  of  the  Gospel,  Privy 
Councillors,  and  Judges  supposed,  been  definitely  settled 
in  favour  of  the  right,  if  not  the  duty,  to  wear  these 
vestments,  by  what  fell  from  the  Judges  in  the  case  of 


lii  INTBODUCTION 

Westerton  v.  Liddell,  but  also  because,  the  question  having 
been  revived,  a  body  of  the  clergy  submitted  a  case  to 
some  seven  or  eight  of  the  most  eminent  men  at  the  Bar 
of  England  upon  this  very  question,  including  (I  would 
omit  to  mention  myself,  though  I  was  one  consulted)  the 
late  Lord  Chief  Justice  Bovill,  the  present  Chief  Justice 
of  the  Common  Pleas,  Lord  Coleridge,  Sir  Eobert  Philli- 
more,  Sir  James  Hannen,  now  Judge  of  the  Divorce 
Court,  and  Lord  Justice  James,  now  all  Privy  Councillors  ; 
and  to  these  were  added  Dr.  Deane,  Q.C.,  Mr.  Prideaux, 
Q.C.,  and  Mr.  J.  Cutler,  Professor  of  Law,  King's  College  ; 
and  all,  without  any  approach  to  a  doubt,  advised  that  the 
Rubric  was  as  much  a  part  of  the  Prayer-Book,  and  made 
law  by  the  Act  of  Parliament,  as  the  Lord's  Prayer,  the 
Creeds,  or  the  Litany;  and  as  affecting  the  obligatory 
nature  of  the  Eubric,  to  this  may  be  added  that  part  of 
the  judgment  of  your  Lordships  in  the  Eidsdale  case,  in 
which  it  was  held  that  this  Eubric,  if  law  at  all,  was 
imperative  or  obligatory.  If,  in  the  perplexity  and  diffi- 
culty in  which  Mr.  Eidsdale  was  thus  placed,  he  had 
appealed  to  your  Lordship  or  any  member  of  the  Privy 
Council,  praying  to  be  informed  upon  what  weight  of 
authority  this  judgment  rested,  seeing  that  he  was  called 
upon  on  the  one  hand  to  obey  the  law,  and  so  to  do 
violence  to  his  conscience,  or,  on  the  other  hand,  rather 
than  violate  what  he  believed  to  be  a  paramount  duty,  to 
continue  to  wear  the  vestments,  and  so  to  expose  himself 
to  another  prosecution,  and  ultimately  to  privation, 
which  to  him  would  be  destitution  and  ruin,  or  to  resign 
his  benefice,  which  would  have  the  same  effect ;  if  in 
this  state  of  things  he  had  appealed,  as  I  have  observed, 
to  any  member  of  the  Privy  Council,  the  answer  to  him, 
if  indeed  he  had  been  fortunate  enough  to  obtain  an 
answer,  must  have  been  :  '  Our  judgment  makes  the  law, 
and  you  are  not  to  know,  and  we  are  forbidden  to  tell, 
whether  the  judgment  was  unanimous  or  whether,  as  it 


INTEODUCTION  liii 

may  be,  the  Lord  Chancellor  and  Lord  Selborne  and  all 
of  the  highest  authority  in  the  Council  were  not  in  the 
minority  and  overruled  by  half  a  dozen  judges,  who, 
though  eminent  and  most  learned  in  the  law,  were  wholly 
unfamiliar  with  these  ecclesiastical  and  doctrinal  questions, 
which  you  of  the  Church  have  studied  throughout  the 
greater  part  of  your  lives.' 

Add  to  this  that  the  Lord  Chancellor  of  the 
day  may,  at  his  discretion,  pack  the  Committee 
with  partisans  of  his  own  religious  opinions,  so  as 
to  secure  a  judgment  in  favour  of  his  own  views 
and  prejudices.  In  his  work  on  the  British  Con- 
stitution l  Lord  Brougham,  who  remodelled  the 
Judicial  Committee  in  1833,  says  : — 

The  Judges,  four  at  least,  and  there  are  seldom  more, 
take  the  causes  in  rotation,  as  virtually  presiding,  and 
each  in  his  turn  thus  draws  up  the  judgment  with  the 
reasons  and  communicates  it  to  the  others,  who  make 
such  alterations  as  they  think  fit,  and  when  all  are  agreed 
it  is  delivered  as  the  judgment  of  the  Court ;  or,  if  they 
differ,  as  that  of  the  majority. 

In  secular  matters  the  procedure  of  the  Judicial 
Committee,  described  by  Lord  Brougham,  has 
generally  been  followed ;  the  judges  have  sat  by 
rotation  and  delivered  their  judgment  in  each  case 
as  that  of  the  majority  alone  when  there  has  been 
a  difference  of  opinion.  In  ecclesiastical  appeals 
the  court  is  now  usually  constituted  by  the  nomi- 
nation of  the  Lord  Chancellor,  who  may  thus,  from 

1  P.  378. 


liv  INTBODUCTION 

motives  of  policy  and  what  he  may  conceive  to  be 
the  interest  of  the  Church  or  State,  form  a  court 
ad  lioc  to  carry  out  a  particular  policy.  And  since 
Lord  Cairns's  Order  in  Council  of  February  4, 1878, 
the  Judicial  Committee  has  ceased  to  be  even  a 
judicial  tribunal,  and  is  now  a  consultative  body 
only,  deliberating  in  secret  and  suppressing  any 
differences  of  opinion  among  its  members.  It  is 
therefore  possible  that  the  court  may  be  equally 
divided  in  opinion  and  the  majority  may  be  consti- 
tuted by  the  casting  vote  of  the  President,  while 
the  minority  thus  artificially  created  may  in 
authority  and  learning  far  outweigh  the  official 
majority.  But  this  is  concealed  from  the  public. 
We  should  not  have  known  without  Chief  Baron 
Fitzroy  Kelly's  revelation  that  himself  and  two 
other  members  of  the  court,  '  one  of  them  perhaps 
the  most  learned  and  experienced  in  ecclesiastical 
causes  among  living  men,'  dissented  from  the 
judgment  in  the  Eidsdale  case.  I  venture  to  think 
that  in  no  other  matter  would  the  anomalous  con- 
stitution of  the  Judicial  Committee  and  its  despotic 
procedure,  borrowed  from  one  of  the  most  arbitrary 
periods  of  English  history,  be  endured.  But  any- 
thing appears  to  be  considered  good  enough  as  an 
ecclesiastical  tribunal.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  the 
Judicial  Committee  has  forfeited  its  title  to  the 
appellation  of  *  judicial '  since  it  declared  itself  to 
be  a  consultative  body  without  jurisdiction.  Is  it 
not  monstrous  that,  in  order  to  find  an  excuse  for 


INTEODUCTION  Iv 

suppressing  differences  of  opinion  among  its  mem- 
bers, the  court  should  declare  itself  to  be  not  a 
court  at  all,  yet  issue  judgments  which  all  con- 
cerned are  bidden  to  obey  without  appeal  on  pain 
of  being  denounced  and  punished  as  law-breakers. 
For  the  reasons,  then,  which  I  have  given  in 
this  Introduction,  and  for  others  stated  in  the  body 
of  this  volume,  I  submit  that  the  Judicial  Com- 
mittee has  proved  itself  utterly  incompetent  as  a 
Final  Court  of  Appeal  in  ecclesiastical  causes. 
Policy,  prejudice,  unconscious  bias,  ignorance,  have 
presided  over  its  ecclesiastical  judgments.  The 
late  Bishop  Stubbs,  with  his  passion  for  justice 
and  his  reverence  for  historical  truth,  did  not  hesi- 
tate, in  a  letter  to  a  friend  (afterwards  published), 
to  accuse  the  Judicial  Committee  of  *  deliberate 
falsehood '  in  its  ecclesiastical  decisions.  So  im- 
possible did  it  seem  to  such  a  master  of  historical 
erudition  to  explain  in  any  other  way  the  violent 
perversions  of  history  which  have  usually  character- 
ised the  judgments  of  that  august  tribunal.  I  have 
never  made  such  an  accusation  myself,  because  my 
experience  has  taught  me  that  an  inveterate  preju- 
dice has  power  to  blind  the  mind  to  the  plainest 
facts.  But  it  is  well  to  bear  in  mind  the  impres- 
sion which  the  proceedings  of  the  Judicial  Com- 
mittee have  made  on  a  mind  so  competent  and  so 
fair  and  impartial  as  that  of  Dr.  Stubbs.  Two 
extracts  from  letters  of  Mr.  Gladstone  to  Bishop 
Wilberforce  will  show  that  those  proceedings  made 


Ivi  INTRODUCTION 

an  equally  painful  impression  on  his  mind.     For 
example : — 

Two  things  are  pretty  plain  :  the  first,  that  not  only 
with  executive  authorities,  but  in  the  sacred  halls  of 
justice,  there  are  now  two  measures,  and  not  one,  in  use  : 
the  strait  one  for  those  supposed  to  err  in  believing  too 
much,  and  the  other  for  those  who  believe  too  little. 
The  second,  that  this  is  another  blow  at  the  dogmatic 
principle  in  the  Established  Church  :  the  principle  on 
which  as  a  Church  it  rests,  and  on  which  as  an  Establish- 
ment it  seems  less  and  less  permitted  to  rest. 

Again  : — 

It  is  neither  disestablishment,  nor  even  loss  of  dog- 
matic truth,  which  I  look  upon  as  the  greatest  danger 
before  us,  but  it  is  the  loss  of  those  elementary  principles 
of  right  and  wrong  on  which  Christianity  itself  must  be 
built.  The  present  position  of  the  Church  of  England 
is  gradually  approximating  to  the  Erastian  theory,  that 
the  business  of  an  Establishment  is  to  teach  all  sorts  of 
doctrines  and  to  provide  for  ordinances  for  all  sorts  of 
people,  to  be  used  at  their  own  option.  It  must  become, 
if  uncorrected,  in  lapse  of  time  a  thoroughly  immoral 
position.1 

I  am  ignorant,  of  course,  of  trie  character  of  the 
Eeport  about  to  be  presented  by  the  Eoyal  Com- 
mission on  Ecclesiastical  Discipline,  and  of  the 
recommendations  which  the  Commission  may  make. 
But  of  one  thing  I  am  very  sure  :  namely,  that 
peace  cannot  be  restored  to  the  Church  till  there 
is  an  end  made  of  enforcing  the  judgments  of  the 

1  Life  of  Bishop  Wilberforce,  ii.  353. 


INTEODUCTION  Ivii 

Judicial  Committee  as  the  law  of  the  Church,  and 
until  another  tribunal  has  been  substituted  for  that 
discredited  court.  The  principle  and  pledge  incor- 
porated in  24  Hen.  VIII.  c.  12,  which  was  rashly 
abolished  when  the  Court  of  Delegates  was  super- 
seded by  the  Judicial  Committee,  must  be  restored 
and  redeemed.  'When  any  cause  of  the  law 
divine  happens  to  come  in  question,  or  of  spiritual 
learning,'  it  must  be  '  declared,  interpreted,  and 
shown  by  that  part  of  the  body  politic  called 
the  spiritualty.'  And  in  case  the  Courts  of  the 
Bishops  and  Archbishops  failed  to  do  justice, 
25  Hen.  VIII.  c.  19  (The  Submission  of  the  Clergy 
and  Restraint  of  Appeals)  provided  an  appeal  to 
the  King  in  Chancery.1  I  quote  the  words  :— 

And  for  lack  of  justice  in  the  Courts  of  the  Arch- 
bishops of  this  realm,  or  in  any  the  King's  dominions, 

1  Not  to  the  King  in  Council,  as  has  been  sometimes  erroneously 
alleged,  e.g.  in  Brodrick  and  Fremantle's  Ecclesiastical  Judgments 
of  the  Privy  Council,  p.  4 :  '  The  claim  to  hear  final  appeals  in 
matters  ecclesiastical,  being  preeminently  one  of  the  original  pre- 
rogatives of  the  Crown,  is,  as  such,  naturally  exercised  by  the  King  in 
Council.'  On  the  contrary,  the  King  in  Council  has  never  exercised 
judicial  jurisdiction  of  any  kind.  Down  to  1832,  when  the  Court  of 
Delegates  was  abolished,  not  a  single  case  exists  of  an  appeal  to 
the  King  in  Council  in  ecclesiastical  causes.  It  was  invariably  to  the 
King  in  Chancery.  The  difference  is  fundamental.  For  in  Chancery 
the  King  exercised  his  prerogative  as  the  fountain  of  justice  through  a 
Court  of  Delegates,  the  majority  of  whom  were  necessarily  ecclesiastics, 
or  ecclesiastical  lawyers :  that  is,  laymen  learned  in  both  canon  and 
civil  law.  The  Judicial  Committee,  establishing  an  appeal  to  the  King 
in  Council — besides  its  proved  incompetence  in  other  respects — was 
thus  surreptitiously  a  violent  infringement  of  the  two  great  Reforma- 
tion statutes,  The  Eestraint  of  Appeals,  and  The  Submission  of  the 
Clergy  and  Restraint  of  Appeals. 


Iviii  INTBODUCTION 

it  shall  be  lawful  for  the  parties  grieved  to  appeal  to  the 
King's  Majesty  in  the  King's  Court  of  Chancery,  and  that 
upon  every  such  appeal  a  commission  shall  be  directed 
under  the  Great  Seal  to  such  persons  as  shall  be  named 
by  the  King's  Highness,  his  heirs  or  successors,  like  as  in 
case  of  appeal  from  the  Admiral's  Court,  to  hear  and 
definitely  determine  such  appeals  and  the  causes  con- 
cerning the  same.  Which  Commissioners,  so  by  the 
King's  Highness,  his  heirs  or  successors,  to  be  named  or 
appointed,  shall  have  full  power  and  authority  to  hear 
and  definitely  determine  every  such  appeal,  with  the 
causes  and  all  circumstances  concerning  the  same ;  and 
that  such  judgment  and  sentence  as  the  said  Commis- 
sioners shall  make  and  decree,  in  and  upon  such  appeal, 
shall  be  good  and  effectual,  and  also  definitive  ;  and  no 
further  appeals  to  be  had  or  made  from  the  said  Commis- 
sioners for  the  same. 

This  is  quite  plain.  The  members  of  the  Court 
of  Delegates  appointed  to  hear  appeals  in  ecclesias- 
tical causes  were  to  be  '  like  as  in  cases  of  appeal 
from  the  Admiral's  Court.'  In  other  words,  as  the 
members  appointed  to  hear  appeals  in  Admiralty 
cases  must  be  persons  skilled  in  Admiralty  law,  so 
persons  delegated  to  hear  appeals  in  ecclesiastical 
cases  must  be  persons  skilled  in  ecclesiastical  law ; 
ordinarily,  bishops  or  ecclesiastical  dignitaries  of 
requisite  learning ;  or,  after  the  Act  allowing  lay- 
men to  be  ecclesiastical  judges,  trained  ecclesias- 
tical lawyers. 

There  is  an  ignorant  prejudice  against  eccle- 
siastical courts.  But  surely  it  stands  to  reason 
that  judges  in  ecclesiastical  affairs  should  be  men 


INTRODUCTION  lix 

learned  in  ecclesiastical  law  and  history.  It  is  so  in 
Scotland.  There  is  no  appeal  from  the  ecclesiastical 
courts  there  so  long  as  they  act  within  the  limits 
of  their  jurisdiction  and  constitutional  powers ; 
and  that  system  works  well. 

In  truth  this  division  of  labour  has  been — at 
least  till  lately — the  rule  in  all  branches  of  our 
judicature.  Let  us  hear  Lord  Coke  : — 

As  every  court  of  justice  hath  laws  and  customs  for 
its  direction,  some  by  the  common  law,  some  by  the  civil 
and  canon  law,  some  by  peculiar  laws  and  customs,  &c.  ; 
so  the  High  Court  of  Parliament  suis  propriis  legibus  et 
consuetudinibus  subsistit.  It  is  by  the  lex  et  consuetudo 
parliament  that  all  weighty  matters  in  any  parliament 
moved,  concerning  the  peers  of  the  realm,  or  commons 
in  parliament  assembled,  ought  to  be  determined,  ad- 
judged, and  discussed  by  the  court  of  parliament,  and 
not  by  the  civil  law,  nor  yet  by  the  common  law  of  this 
realm  used  in  inferior  courts.  This  is  the  reason  that 
judges  ought  not  to  give  any  opinion  of  a  matter  of 
parliament,  because  it  is  not  to  be  decided  by  the 
common  laws,  but  secundum  legem  et  consuetudinem 
parliament ;  and  so  the  judges  in  divers  parliaments  have 
confessed. l 

When,  in  the  year  1586,  some  Puritan  members 
of  the  House  of  Commons  sought  to  invade  the 
domain  of  the  spiritualty,  the  Queen  sent  them  a 
peremptory  refusal  by  the  mouth  of  the  Lord 
Keeper,  on  the  ground  that  '  if  anything  were 
amiss  it  appertaineth  to  the  clergy  more  properly 

1  Inst.  4,  p.  15. 


Ix  INTEODUCTION 

to  see  the  same  redressed.'  In  enforcing  this  royal 
message  the  Lord  Keeper  quoted  the  proverbial 
warning  :  Unicuique  in  sua  arte  credendum.  Quam 
quisque  novit  artem,  in  Jiac  se  exerceat.  Navem 
agere  ignarus  navis  timet.  This  rule  of  '  every  man 
to  his  art '  prevails  in  all  departments  of  the  State 
except  in  the  present  administration  of  the  law  of 
the  Church  of  England.  The  army,  the  navy,  and 
the  Established  Church  of  Scotland,  all  have  their 
own  independent  tribunals.  Yet  any  haphazard 
pilot,  though  he  may  never  have  looked  into  a  chart, 
and  be  quite  incapable  of  taking  a  nautical  observa- 
tion, is  considered  perfectly  qualified  to  navigate 
the  good  ship  of  the  Church  of  England  through  all 
the  dangers  of  the  deep.  But  for  the  '  Divinity 
that  shapes  our  ends,'  she  must  have  suffered 
shipwreck  long  ago. 

It  is  not  a  question  of  the  ability  or  integrity 
of  the  judges,  but  of  their  knowledge.  Let  us  look  at 
the  composition  of  the  Judicial  Committee  as  com- 
pared with  the  Court  of  Delegates  which  it  super- 
seded. From  1534  to  1832  the  Sovereign,  acting 
through  the  Lord  Chancellor,  who  must  be  a  pro- 
fessed member  of  the  Church  of  England,  selected 
delegates  from  all  England,  including  learned 
clergy  or  ecclesiastical  lawyers  learned  in  common 
law  and  ecclesiastical  history.  By  the  existing 
law  the  Lord  Chancellor,  or  the  President  of  the 
Council,  who  need  not  even  be  a  Churchman, 
chooses  out  of  a  body  of  about  thirty  a  quorum 


INTEODUCTION  Ixi 

who  need  not  be  more  than  three,  and  not  one  of 
whom  is  obliged  to  be  a  Churchman.  Ecclesiastics 
are  excluded  from  the  court  by  law,  and  ecclesias- 
tical lawyers  by  necessity.  For  the  race  of  eccle- 
siastical lawyers  came  to  an  end  as  a  branch  of 
the  law  on  the  extinction  of  Doctors'  Commons. 
As  regards  its  judiciary,  therefore,  the  position  of  the 
Church  of  England  is  anomalous  and  unique  among 
religious  bodies.  A  final  court  of  appeal  has  been 
imposed  upon  her  without  her  consent,  not  a  single 
member  of  which  is  obliged  to  be  a  Churchman. 
Her  doctrines  and  ritual  are  under  the  control  of  a 
quorum  of  three  of  the  Judicial  Committee ;  and  not 
only  so,  but  the  whole  quorum  may  and  are  likely 
to  be  quite  ignorant  of  the  questions  on  which 
they  are  called  upon  to  give  a  final  decision.  But 
if  they  were  all  of  necessity  Churchmen  it  would 
make  very  little  difference  as  to  their  competence. 
Let  me  put  a  favourable  case. 

Sir  Edward  Clarke  is  a  sincere  Churchman, 
a  most  able  man,  a  brilliant  advocate  with  a  great 
reputation  at  the  Bar,  accomplished,  conscientious ; 
yet  if  any  of  my  readers  who  understand  these 
questions  will  look  at  Sir  Edward  Clarke's  exami- 
nation of  me  (see  Appendix  A,  pp.  328-339)  they 
will,  I  think,  agree  with  me  that  this  distinguished 
lawyer  is  rather  impeded  than  aided  by  his  practice 
at  the  Bar  in  arriving  at  right  conclusions  on 
questions  of  ecclesiastical  law.  He  recognises  no 
common  law  of  Christendom  in  doctrine  and  ritual 


Ixii  INTBODUCTION 

though  it  is  plainly  laid  down  by  the  existing 
statute  and  canon  law.  He  insisted  on  my  giving 
him  '  a  definite  rule  '  as  to  ritual  and  ceremonial 
observances,  '  mandatory  and  not  permissive.' 
When  I  answered  that  in  the  sixteenth  century 
'  a  standard  was  adopted  which  legalised  every- 
thing within  that  standard,  but  something  less 
was  permitted  because  it  was  very  difficult,  if  not 
impossible,  in  some  cases  to  bring  all  the  clergy  up 
to  the  standard,'  he  retorted,  *  Never  mind  what 
was  the  case  at  that  time.'  He  could  see  no 
difference  between  '  a  definite  mandatory  rule  '  and 
leaving  '  everybody  free  to  do  as  he  liked.'  He 
brushed  aside,  with  an  '  Oh,  no,'  my  assertion  that 
in  the  sixteenth  century  the  Koyal  assent  to  a  Bill 
by  Commission  put  an  end  to  the  session  unless 
special  provision  was  made  to  the  contrary.  Yet 
what  Sir  Edward  Clarke  thus  waved  aside  is  an 
undoubted  fact.  He  insisted  that  the  disuse  of 
the  Eucharistic  vestments  proved  their  illegality, 
although  it  is  an  accepted  maxim  even  of  the 
common  law  that  desuetude  is  not  repeal,  and  that 
no  statute  can  be  abrogated  except  by  a  subsequent 
statute  which  repeals  the  former  absolutely,  or  by 
necessary  implication.  And  when  I  reminded  him 
of  the  disuse  of  the  cope,  which  nevertheless  the 
Judicial  Committee  on  two  occasions  pronounced 
not  only  legal,  but  obligatory,  Sir  Edward  said,  { I 
assure  you  that  I  do  not  find  any  difficulty  about 
the  cope.'  The  law  and  practice  of  Elizabeth's 


INTRODUCTION  Ixiii 

reign,  he  said,  'has  nothing  to  do  with  it.'  He 
must  have  an  instance  of  some  clergyman  wearing 
a  chasuble  since  1662,  when  the  last  Act  of  Uni- 
formity was  passed,  sanctioning  the  present  form 
of  the  Ornaments  Eubric ;  forgetting  that  the 
Convocation  and  Legislature  of  1661-2  were  simply 
and  avowedly  restoring  the  old  law,  not  making  a 
new  one.  I  reminded  him  that  the  present  form 
of  the  rubric  was  framed  by  Cosin,  and  that  Cosin 
has  declared  emphatically  that  the  intention  of 
the  rubric  was  to  restore  the  disused  vestments. 
But  all  in  vain.  Nothing  short  of  positive  evi- 
dence that  the  vestments  had  been  worn  since  1662 
would  satisfy  Sir  Edward  Clarke.  Some  persons 
who  have  not  gone  deep  into  the  question  date  the 
origin  of  the  Church  of  England  from  the  reign  of 
Henry  VIII. ;  others  from  the  reign  of  Edward  VI., 
or  Elizabeth ;  and  refuse  to  recognise  any  doctrine 
or  ritual  as  legal  which  precedes  those  dates.  Sir 
Edward  Clarke  draws  the  line  at  1662,  and  will 
not  recognise  any  custom  or  law  of  the  English 
Church  of  an  anterior  date.  That  mental  attitude, 
natural  to  a  lawyer  of  Sir  Edward's  branch  of  the 
profession,  and  characteristic  of  the  Judicial  Com- 
mittee, is  a  positive  disqualification  for  sitting  in  a 
Court  of  Appeal  in  ecclesiastical  causes. 

Now  I  hold  that  the  use  or  non-use  of  the 
Eucharistic  vestments  since  1662,  or  even  since 
1559,  has  nothing  to  do  with  their  legality.  The 
cope  went  completely  out  of  use,  even  in  cathedrals ; 

d 


Ixiv  INTRODUCTION 

yet  the  Judicial  Committee  has  declared  that  its 
use  is  still  obligatory  in  law.  Let  it  be  re- 
membered that  the  Bucharistic  vestments  were 
only  used  at  the  celebration  of  the  Holy  Com- 
munion, which  was  a  rare  event  from  the  middle 
of  Elizabeth's  reign  till  the  Eestoration  :  generally 
once  a  quarter,  in  many  places  only  once  a  year ; 
even  in  cathedrals  only  once  a  month.  The 
tradition  of  the  vestments  thus  died  out  in  most 
parishes  in  England  even  before  the  death  of 
Charles  I.  The  Commonwealth  made  a  clean 
sweep  of  all  church  ornaments,  and  at  the  Eestora- 
tion the  Church  found  herself  empty  and  desolate. 
Laud,  strong-willed  as  he  was,  found  it  impossible 
to  restore  the  general  use  of  the  surplice  in  any 
ecclesiastical  ministrations,  and  it  was  not  restored 
universally  before  the  Tractarian  movement.  The 
Eoyal  Commissioners  appointed  in  1689  to  revise 
the  Prayer-Book  recommended  that  the  use  of 
the  surplice  should  be  made  optional.  'If  any 
minister,'  says  the  Eeport  of  the  Commissioners, 
1  should  come  and  declare  to  his  bishop  that  he 
cannot  satisfy  his  conscience  in  the  use  of  the 
surplice  in  divine  service,  in  that  case  the  bishop 
shall  dispense  with  his  using  it ;  and  if  he  shall 
see  cause  for  it,  he  shall  appoint  a  curate  to 
officiate  in  a  surplice.' 

Fancy  a  parish  in  which  the  incumbent  ob- 
jected to  the  surplice  and  was  dispensed  from  its 
use,  but  was  assisted  by  a  curate  clothed  in  sur- 


INTRODUCTION  Ixv 

plice,  to  satisfy  such  parishioners  as  desired  that 
garment!  And  the  Commission  which  recom- 
mended that  piebald  piece  of  ritualism  consisted 
of  one  Archbishop  and  nine  Bishops,  in  addition  to 
the  Deans  of  St.  Paul's,  Canterbury,  Peterborough, 
Winchester,  Norwich,  and  of  Christ  Church ;  in 
addition  also  to  two  Kegius  Professors  from  Oxford 
and  one  from  Cambridge,  as  well  as  the  Master 
of  Trinity  and  five  archdeacons,  besides  five 
prebendaries.  Fortunately,  Convocation  rejected 
the  recommendations  of  the  Commissioners  and 
saved  the  Church  from  a  grotesque  and  unwork- 
able innovation.  But  the  incident  proves  the 
absurdity  of  arguing  on  the  assumption  that  the 
Ornaments  Rubric  was  always  obeyed  even  in 
regard  to  the  surplice.  It  was  no  more  obeyed, 
even  when  its  meaning  was  not  disputed,  than 
the  rubric  which  orders  the  use  of  the  Athanasian 
Creed  is  now  by  a  large  number  of  the  clergy. 
Dean  Prideaux,  a  learned  and  distinguished  divine 
of  the  period,  published  a  pamphlet  in  defence  of 
the  recommendations  of  the  Royal  Commissioners. 
Here  is  his  solution  of  the  surplice  question : — 

As  to  the  surplice,  I  am  sufficiently  satisfied  that 
nothing  is  more  unreasonable  than  those  cavils  which  are 
risen  against  it.  ...  But  when  through  the  malice  of 
some  in  working  strange  objections  against  it  into  the 
minds  of  men,  and  the  weakness  of  others  in  receiving 
and  believing  them,  it  is  now  become  so  great  a  stumbling- 
block  of  offence  as  to  drive  multitudes  to  forsake  our 
churches,  and  be  disaffected  to  the  worship  of  God  which 

d2 


Ixvi  INTEODUCTION 

is  performed  in  them,  whatsoever  was  the  reason  of  its 
first  appointment,  sure  I  am  that  from  hence  there  is 
much  greater  to  lay  it  aside,  and  appoint  another  that 
may  be  less  offensive  in  its  stead.  The  union  of  the 
Church  and  the  benefit  which  the  souls  of  men  may 
receive  thereby  being  certainly  things  of  far  greater 
moment  than  to  be  sacrificed  to  so  trivial  a  matter  as  that 
of  a  garment.1 

4  Totally  to  lay  aside '  the  surplice  was  certainly 
a  less  objectionable  as  well  as  a  more  logical 
solution  than  providing  a  surpliced  curate  for  the 
incumbent  whose  conscience  would  not  let  him 
put  on  his  own  back  what  he  had  no  objection  to 
see  on  the  back  of  his  curate. 

But  the  surplice  was  not  the  only  stumbling- 
block  to  scrupulous  consciences  at  that  time.  The 
Athanasian  Creed  was  another,  and  drastic  pro- 
posals were  made  regarding  it  also,  which  I  will 
pass  by.  The  reader  will  be  surprised  to  learn 
that  kneeling  at  the  reception  of  the  Holy  Com- 
munion was  another  grievance  which  it  was 
proposed  to  abolish  or  leave  optional.2  I  quote 
Dean  Prideaux's  defence  of  the  proposed  altera- 
tion : — 

Kneeling  at  the  Sacrament  of  the  Lord's  Supper  is  a 
posture  so  proper  to  that  Holy  Ordinance,  that  of  all  the 
constitutions  of  our  Church  this  is  the  last  I  should  be 

1  A  Letter  to  a  Friend  Relating  to  the  Present  Convocation  at 
Westminster,  by  Humphrey  Prideaux,  D.D.,  p.  49. 

2  The  Commissioners  recommended  that  a  communicant  who,  after 
conference  with  his  minister,  declared  that  he  could  not  conscientiously 
receive  the  Sacrament  kneeling,  might  receive  it  standing. 


INTRODUCTION  Ixvii 

willing  to  part  with  ;  because  I  think  the  highest  posture 
of  devotion  is  that  which  is  always  most  natural  for  us  to 
be  in  when  we  are  receiving  from  it  so  great  and  inestim- 
able benefits  as  those  which  are  reached  out  unto  us  in 
that  Holy  Mystery.  But  since  the  weakness  of  many, 
who  are  good  and  well-meaning  men,  has  been  so  far 
imposed  on  by  several  fallacious  arguments,  which  they 
have  not  skill  enough  to  see  through,  as  to  think  it  sinful 
to  receive  in  that  posture,  and  hereby  the  table  of  the 
Lord  becomes  deserted,  and  the  souls  of  many  deprived 
of  the  benefit  of  that  spiritual  food  which  is  administered 
thereon,  contrary  to  the  intention  of  our  Saviour,  who 
hath  by  no  means  empowered  us  on  any  such  account  as 
this  to  debar  men  from  communion,  and  deprive  them 
thereby  of  those  benefits  of  salvation  which  we  are  sent  to 
administer  unto  them,  it  is  time  for  us  now  to  abate  our 
rigour  in  this  matter  ;  and  when  we  are  not  able  to  bring 
men  up  by  reason  of  their  weakness  to  the  constitutions 
of  the  Church,  be  so  far  indulgent  as  to  descend  to  them, 
and  give  them  the  Sacrament  in  their  own  way  rather 
than,  for  the  sake  of  a  posture  only,  debar  them  of  the 
benefits  which  their  souls  may  receive  thereby;  and 
to  do  otherwise,  I  doubt,  will  not  only  be  a  sin 
against  Christian  charity,  in  prejudicing  the  salvation 
of  many,  but  also  be  an  abuse  of  the  commission  en- 
trusted to  us. 

A  long  sentence,  as  confused  in  syntax  as  in 
logic.  I  need  not  discuss  other  alterations  which 
it  was  then  proposed  to  make  in  the  Prayer-Book. 
The  recommendations  of  the  Eoyal  Commission 
were  rejected  by  Convocation,  and  nothing  came 
of  them.  This  was  fortunate,  for  if  they  had  been 
carried  into  effect  there  can  hardly  be  a  doubt 
that  they  would  have  resulted  in  the  disintegration 


Ixviii  INTRODUCTION 

of  the  Church  of  England.1  Who  would  have 
cared  to  maintain  an  ecclesiastical  establishment 
in  which  the  use  of  creeds  and  ceremonies  was  left 


1  It  was  fortunate  also  in  the  interest  of  literature.  For  the  re- 
volutionary recommendations  of  the  Royal  Commissioners  did  not 
spare  even  the  incomparable  English  of  the  Book  of  Common  Prayer. 
'  The  style  of  the  Liturgy,  however,  did  not  satisfy  the  Doctors  of  the 
Jerusalem  Chamber.  They  voted  the  Collects  too  short  and  dry ;  and 
Patrick  was  entrusted  with  the  duty  of  expanding  and  ornamenting 
them.'  (Macaulay's  Hist.  iii.  476.)  Even  the  Latitudinarian  gorge  of 
Macaulay  rose  in  revolt  against  this  barbarism.  '  The  diction  of  our 
Prayer-Book,'  he  says,  '  has  directly  or  indirectly  contributed  to  form 
the  diction  of  almost  every  great  English  writer,  and  has  extorted  the 
admiration  of  the  most  accomplished  infidels  and  of  the  most  accom- 
plished Nonconformists ;  of  such  men  as  David  Hume  and  Robert 
Hall.  ...  In  one  respect  at  least  the  choice  of  Patrick,  to  improve 
the  style  of  the  Prayer-Book,  seems  to  have  been  unexceptionable  ;  for, 
if  we  judge  by  the  way  in  which  Patrick  paraphrased  the  most  sublime 
Hebrew  poetry,  we  shall  probably  be  of  opinion  that,  whether  he  was 
or  was  not  qualified  to  make  the  Collects  better,  no  man  that  ever 
lived  was  more  competent  to  make  them  longer.  I  will  give  two 
specimens  of  Patrick's  workmanship.  "  He  maketh  me,"  says  David, 
"  to  lie  down  in  green  pastures  ;  He  leadeth  me  beside  the  still  waters." 
Patrick's  version  is  as  follows :  "  For  as  a  good  shepherd  leads  his 
sheep  in  the  violent  heat  to  shady  places,  where  they  may  lie  down 
and  feed  (not  in  parched,  but)  in  fresh  and  green  pastures,  and  in  the 
evening  leads  them  (not  to  muddy  and  troubled  waters,  but)  to  purer 
and  quiet  streams ;  so  hath  He  already  made  a  fair  and  plentiful  pro- 
vision for  me,  which  I  enjoy  in  peace  without  disturbance."  In  the 
Song  of  Solomon  is  an  exquisitely  beautiful  verse  :  "  I  charge  you,  O 
daughters  of  Jerusalem,  if  ye  find  my  beloved,  that  ye  tell  him  that  I 
am  sick  of  love."  Patrick's  version  runs  thus  :  "  So  I  turned  myself  to 
those  of  my  neighbours  and  familiar  acquaintance  who  were  awakened 
by  my  cries  to  come  to  see  what  the  matter  was ;  and  conjured  them, 
as  they  would  answer  it  to  God,  that,  if  they  met  with  my  beloved, 
they  would  let  him  know — what  shall  I  say  ? — what  shall  I  desire  you 
to  tell  him,  but  that  I  do  not  enjoy  myself  now  that  I  want  his 
company,  nor  can  be  well  till  I  recover  his  love  again  ?  "  '  Fancy  our 
Book  of  Common  Prayer  '  expanded  and  ornamented  '  in  this  style  1 
In  saving  such  a  classic  from  such  an  outrage  Convocation  is  surely 
entitled  to  the  everlasting  gratitude  of  every  lover  of  the  English 


INTRODUCTION  Ixix 

optional?  The  lack  of  statesmanship  and  feeble 
grasp  of  principle  which  the  Commissioners'  re- 
commendations and  Dean  Prideaux's  pamphlet 
exhibit  indicated  a  state  of  spiritual  apathy  which 
went  on  increasing  till  Wesley  appeared  to  rouse 
the  nation  from  its  lethargy.  We  know  the  re- 
ception which  he  and  his  followers  received  from 
the  well-to-do  and  from  the  authorities  in  Church 
and  State.  Macaulay  has  some  remarks  on  this 
subject  which  are  worth  quoting.  Contrasting  the 
different  policies  of  the  Churches  of  Eome  and 
England  in  dealing  with  new  religious  movements, 
he  says  of  the  former  : — 

She  thoroughly  understands,  what  no  other  Church 
has  ever  understood,  how  to  deal  with  enthusiasts.  In 
some  sects,  particularly  in  infant  sects,  enthusiasm  is 
suffered  to  be  rampant.  In  other  sects,  particularly  in 
sects  long  established  and  richly  endowed,  it  is  regarded 
with  aversion.  The  Catholic  Church  neither  submits  to 
enthusiasm  nor  proscribes  it,  but  uses  it.  She  considers 
it  as  a  great  moving  force  which  in  itself,  like  the 
muscular  powers  of  a  great  horse,  is  neither  good  nor 
evil,  but  which  may  be  so  directed  as  to  produce  great 
good  or  great  evil ;  and  she  assumes  the  direction  to  her- 
self. .  .  .  The  ignorant  enthusiast  whom  the  Anglican 
Church  makes  an  enemy,  and,  whatever  the  polite  and 
learned  may  think,  a  most  dangerous  enemy,  the  Catholic 
Church  makes  a  champion.  ...  In  this  way  the  Church 
of  Eome  unites  in  herself  all  the  strength  of  Establish- 
ment and  all  the  strength  of  Dissent.  ...  At  Home  the 
Countess  of  Huntingdon  would  have  a  place  in  the 
calendar  as  St.  Selina,  and  Mrs.  Fry  would  be  foundress 
and  first  Superior  of  the  Blessed  Order  of  Sisters  of  the 


Ixx  INTKODUCTION 

Gaols.  Place  Ignatius  Loyola  at  Oxford.  He  is  certain 
to  become  the  head  of  a  formidable  secession.  Place 
John  Wesley  at  Borne.  He  is  certain  to  be  the  first 
General  of  a  new  society  devoted  to  the  interests  and 
honour  of  the  Church.1 

Wesley  was  discouraged  and  repelled,  and  the 
immense  spiritual  force  of  Methodism,  which 
might  have  been  enlisted  in  the  service  of  the 
Church  of  England,  was  thus  alienated,  and  driven 
to  energise,  not  always  in  a  friendly  spirit,  outside 
her  pale. 

But  Wesley's  example  was  not  altogether  fruit- 
less inside  the  Church.  It  led  the  way  to  the 
Evangelical  revival,  which,  like  reforms  in  general, 
was  one-sided ;  dwelling  too  much  on  the  subjec- 
tive side  of  religion,  and  too  little  on  its  external 
framework  and  sacramental  character.  The  Oxford 
Movement  came  to  redress  the  balance.  And  how 
were  the  rank  and  file  of  that  movement  received 
by  their  own  generation  ?  It  is  now  the  fashion  to 
extol  the  Tractarian  party  as  loyal  Churchmen,  led 
by  a  band  of  brilliant  and  able  and  self-sacrificing 
men.  Very  different  was  the  judgment  passed 
upon  them  in  their  own  day.  The  most  brilliant 
of  them,  after  he  was  driven  out  of  a  Church  which 
knew  not  how  to  use  his  gifts,  culled  a  posy  of 
excerpts  from  episcopal  charges  of  which  the 
following  will  suffice  as  a  specimen : — 

1  Critical  and  Historical  Essays  (Essay  on  Eanke),  iii.  139, 


INTRODUCTION  Ixxi 

'Let  us  diligently  search  the  well  of  life,'  said  one, 
'and  not  run  after  the  stinking  puddles  of  tradition, 
devised  by  men's  imagination.'  '  It  is  a  subject  of  deep 
concern,'  said  another,  'that  any  of  our  body  should 
prepare  men  of  ardent  feelings  for  a  return  to  the  Roman 
Mass-book.'  '  Already,'  said  a  third, '  are  the  foundations 
of  apostasy  laid.  Antichrist  is  at  the  door.  I  am  full  of 
fear :  everything  is  at  stake ;  there  seems  to  be  something 
judicial  in  the  rapid  spread  of  these  opinions.'  '  Our 
glory  is  in  jeopardy,'  cries  a  fourth.  '  Tractarianism  is 
the  masterpiece  of  Satan,'  says  a  fifth. 

But  space  would  fail  me  if  I  were  to  quote  in 
detail.  Let  it,  then,  suffice  to  say  that  the  leading 
Tractarians  were  denounced  as 

'  superstitious,' '  zealots,' '  mystical,' '  malignants,' '  Oxford 
heretics,'  'Jesuits  in  disguise,'  'tamperers  with  Popish 
idolatry,'  '  agents  of  Satan,'  '  a  synagogue  of  Satan,' 
'  snakes  in  the  grass,'  men  who  were  '  walking  about  our 
beloved  Church,  polluting  the  sacred  edifice  and  leaving 
their  slime  about  her  altars,'  'miscreants,  whose  heads 
may  God  crush.' l 

And  the  Press  vied  with  the  Episcopate  in  these 
violent  denunciations  of  the  leading  Tractarians. 
In  a  number  of  the  '  Standard '  of  the  year  1841  I 
find  a  leading  article  in  which  it  is  said :  *  There  is 
not  a  particle  of  true  intellectual  vigour,  or  man- 
hood, or  candour  in  his  [Newman's]  whole  sect.' 
The  l  Times,'  to  do  it  justice,  tried  for  three  years 
gallantly  to  stem  the  torrent  of  abuse.  In  the 
same  year  (1841)  in  which  the  *  Standard '  denied 

1  Newman,  Lectures  on  Certain  Difficulties  felt  by  Anglicans  in 
pubmittiny  to  the  Catholic  Church,  p.  92, 


Ixxii  INTKODUCTION 

that  there  was  l  a  particle  of  true  intellectual 
vigour,  or  manhood,  or  candour  '  in  Newman  and 
his  friends,  the  '  Times  '  wrote  :— 

No  man,  however  widely  differing  from  them,  can 
open  any  of  their  publications  without  perceiving  that 
they  write  with  learning,  ability,  forbearance,  and  courtesy 
of  language  towards  their  adversaries.  No  man  can  know 
anything  of  their  lives  without  being  aware  that  they  act 
consistently  with  their  professions. 

In  1844  the  '  Times '  joined  the  assailants  of 
the  Tractarian  party,  and  the  motive  cause  was  the 
insistence  by  the  leading  Tractarians  on  the  weekly 
offertory  even  when  there  was  no  celebration  of  the 
Holy  Communion.  I  am  bound  to  say  that  the 
'  Times  '  seems  to  me  to  have  had  the  best  of  the 
argument.  The  Tractarian  movement,  like  most 
earnest  and  enthusiastic  movements,  had  its  '  fads  ' 
and  puerilities.  It  elevated  the  weekly  offertory 
into  a  kind  of  sacrament.  '  For  himself,'  said 
Bishop  Blomfield — who  was  hardly  a  Tractarian— 
to  a  deputation  on  this  subject,  '  he  at  once  de- 
clared that  he  would  not  preach  in  any  church  in 
his  diocese  where  the  ceremony  regarding  the 
offertory  was  not  observed.'  The  line  the  '  Times  ' 
took  was  that  the  offertory  was  an  adjunct  to  the 
celebration  of  the  Holy  Communion,  and  that  the 
weekly  revival  of  the  one  implied  the  accompani- 
ment of  the  other  : — 

If  the  Bishop  of  London  [it  said]  chooses  to  hold  to 
the  decision  of  antiquity,  he  must  first  restore  weekly 


INTRODUCTION  Ixxiii 

communion,  and  then  the  weekly  offertory  is  sure  to 
come.  .  .  .  Let  the  clergy,  especially  the  younger  ones, 
remember  that  as  words  are  the  signs  of  ideas,  so  forms 
and  ceremonies  are  but  the  outward  expressions  and 
features  of  a  vast  spiritual  soul.  The  church  revivers 
may  be  right  or  they  may  be  wrong  in  wishing  to  get 
back  the  old  system ;  but  if  we  were  their  enemies,  we 
could  not  recommend  them  a  more  pernicious  course  than 
that  which  some  are  pursuing.  To  introduce  bits  and 
fragments — and  under  present  circumstances  the  weekly 
offertory,  without  communion,  is  but  a  contemptible  scrap 
— of  an  ancient  system,  without  first  having  saturated 
themselves  and  their  flocks  with  a  '  primitive '  life  and 
doctrine,  is  a  puerility. 


This  seems  to  me  good  sense  and  sound  doc- 
trine, and  the  *  Times  '  would  have  done  admirable 
service  if  it  had  continued  to  write  in  this  wise 
style  of  calm  and  judicious  criticism.  But  it 
yielded  at  last  to  the  current  and  gave  the  as- 
sailants of  the  Oxford  Movement  the  inestimable 
advantage  of  its  heavy  batteries. 

'  The  best  of  prophets  of  the  future  is  the  past.' 
A  true  knowledge  of  history  confers  a  kind  of  gift 
of  prophecy.  To  look  backward  intelligently  and 
sagaciously  is  potentially  to  look  forward.  Political 
and  religious  movements  commonly  obey  everlast- 
ing laws  and  travel  through  the  stages  of  known 
cycles,  which  thus  ensure  enough  of  resemblance 
to  guarantee  the  general  outline  of  an  accurate 
prophecy.  Let  us  then  take  a  sort  of  bird's-eye 
view  of  the  various  stages  of  the  *  Eitual  '  contro 


Ixxiv  INTRODUCTION 

versy  from  the  year  1844  to  the  forthcoming  Report 
of  the  Eoyal  Commission  on  Ecclesiastical  Disci- 
pline. It  will  make  interesting,  and  perchance 
instructive,  reading.  My  quotations  shall  be  all 
from  the  '  Times,'  because,  however  violent  its  lan- 
guage may  seem  now,  its  violence  was  surpassed 
by  most  of  the  leading  organs  of  public  opinion  at 
the  time.  The  following  is  from  a  leading  article 
in  the  '  Times  '  of  December  31,  1844  :— 

Throughout  the  whole  of  this  unhappy  contest  the  laity 
have  behaved  with  consistency;  they  have  stood  their 
ground  firmly ;  they  have  made  known,  intelligibly  enough, 
over  and  over  again,  their  strong  repugnance  to  the  intro- 
duction of  the  obnoxious  novelties ;  they  have  respect- 
fully requested  the  removal  of  them  ;  to  be  allowed  to 
worship  as  their  fathers  worshipped,  and  to  observe  the 
same  ritual  to  which  they  have  been  accustomed  from 
their  infancy.  .  .  .  The  year,  it  appears,  is  to  close  over 
this  fiery  controversy  of  which  no  one  can  tell  the  final 
issue.  .  .  .  We  look  upon  it  as  a  strife,  not  of  words,  but 
of  principles,  and  therefore  the  more  lasting  and  im- 
portant in  its  effects. 

These  are  the  words  with  which  the  '  Times  ' 
rings  out  the  year  1844.  The  area  of  the  strife 
extended  during  the  following  year,  and  so,  un- 
fortunately, did  its  bitterness.  The  Press  had  re- 
porters— war  correspondents  they  might  be  more 
fitly  called — to  watch  and  describe  the  develop- 
ment of  events.  One  of  these,  writing  from  Exeter 
on  January  20,  1845,  opens  his  description  of  the 
fray  as  follows : — 


INTRODUCTION  Ixxv 

After  the  disgraceful  exhibition  of  Sunday  last  at  the 
church  of  St.  Sidwell's — the  excitement  and  irritation 
shown  in  the  church — the  hootings  and  yellings  in  the 
streets  by  an  indignant  population  at  the  Kev.  Mr. 
Courtenay  for  continuing  observances  and  ceremonies 
in  the  service  of  the  church  to  which  the  parishioners 
had  expressed  their  repeated  and  decided  objection — it 
was  hoped  by  many  that  a  regard  for  the  decorous 
observance  of  the  Sabbath,  and  for  the  quieting  of  men's 
minds,  would  have  induced  that  gentleman  to  yield. 

But  '  that  gentleman '  apparently  was  proof 
even  against  the  soothing  influences  of  the  Sabbath, 
and  performed  accordingly  the  service  in  a  way 
which  led  to  results  described  as  follows  by  the 
{  Times '  correspondent : — 

On  leaving  the  church  the  congregation  mingled  with 
a  crowd  of  700  or  800  people  who  were  assembled  outside, 
and  waited  for  the  appearance  of  Mr.  Courtenay.  He 
left  the  church  in  the  centre  of  a  dozen  gentlemen, 
headed  by  the  churchwardens,  and  was  received  by  the 
crowd  with  hootings  and  yellings,  which  continued  as  he 
and  his  friends  rapidly  made  their  way  through,  protected 
by  policemen. 

This  was  in  the  morning. 

In  the  evening  [continues  the  reporter],  although  it 
rained  in  torrents,  the  church  of  St.  Sidwell's  was  densely 
crowded.  It  was  a  strange  and  unbecoming  scene  of 
excitement.  Again  Mr.  Courtenay  preached  in  his  sur- 
plice, following  all  the  same  objectionable  observances  as 
in  the  morning.  On  his  entering  the  pulpit  the  congrega- 
tion appeared  all  to  rise  from  curiosity ;  many  went  out ; 
the  church  porch  and  lobby  were  densely  crowded ;  and 


Ixxvi  INTRODUCTION 

so  great  a  noise  prevailed  that  the  opening  prayer  before 
the  sermon  was  scarcely  audible.  .  .  .  The  service  ended, 
the  scene  outside  the  church  beggars  description.  It 
rained  in  torrents ;  yet  the  streets  were  like  a  fair. 
About  two  thousand  persons  were  assembled  to  hoot 
Mr.  Courtenay  as  he  left  the  church.  Gibes,  and  shouts, 
and  laughter  rang  through  the  air.  The  rev.  gentleman 
was  again  surrounded  by  a  party  of  his  friends  to  protect 
him  as  he  left  the  church.  A  strong  body  of  the  police 
made  a  lane  through  the  crowd  for  him,  and  then  formed 
in  close  file  round  him  to  keep  off  the  crowd.  .  .  .  The 
indignation  of  the  people  is  certainly  excusable,  for  the 
cause  of  all  the  mischief  was  Mr.  Courtenay  and  a  white 
gown.  It  was  generally  rumoured  that  the  Mayor  had 
called  on  Mr.  Courtenay  before  the  afternoon  service,  and 
represented  to  him  the  danger  to  the  peace  of  the  town, 
and  the  great  probability  of  a  fight  with  the  police  if  he 
persevered,  and  had  put  it  to  him  as  a  clergyman  if  he 
thought  it  proper  to  run  the  risk  of  such  a  result  by 
persisting  in  the  line  of  conduct  he  was  pursuing. 

These  scenes  went  on  for  several  Sundays, 
and  then  the  '  Times  '  opened  its  batteries  on  Mr. 
Courtenay.  '  Quousque  tandem  ?  '  demanded  the 
leading  journal,  as  if  Mr.  Courtenay  were  an  eccle- 
siastical Catiline,  conspiring  against  the  institutions 
of  his  country. 

How  long  is  it  to  go  on  ?  How  long  is  the  public 
patience  to  be  abused  by  the  impertinence  of  such  men  as 
the  Rev.  Mr.  Courtenay  in  those  ceremonial  absurdities 
which  even  his  Bishop  has  been  forced  to  discountenance  ? 
...  As  to  reasoning  the  point  any  longer,  it  is  out  of  the 
question.  For  the  peace  of  society,  for  the  comfort  of 
the  townspeople,  for  the  cause  of  quiet  and  devotion  in 


INTKODUCTION  Ixxvii 

the  public  service  of  the  church,  this  may  not  and  must 
not  be.  Mr.  Courtenay's  career  has  had  its  full  share  of 
experiment  upon  the  general  feeling  of  Exeter ;  and  if  he 
will  not  comply  with  the  audible  expression  of  opinion 
which  he  has  already  received,  but  will  collect  a  crowd  to 
repeat  their  detestation  of  his  doings,  and  put  in  requisi- 
tion a  whole  force  of  police  to  guard  him  home,  he  must 
be  put  down  as  a  common  nuisance. 

Let  us  now  leap  over  three  years.  Poor  Mr. 
Courtenay  was  worried  into  his  grave  in  the  inter- 
val, and  the  Kev.  J.  Ingle  appears  as  the  hero  of 
the  scene  which  is  thus  described  in  the  '  Times  ' 
of  November  6,  1848  :— 

A  KIOT  IN  CHUECH. — On  Sunday,  the  29th  ult.,  the 
church  of  St.  Sidwell's,  in  the  city  of  Exeter,  was  the 
scene  of  a  disgraceful  riot  during  the  time  of  the  evening 
service  in  consequence  of  the  Rev.  J.  Ingle  entering  the 
pulpit  in  his  surplice.  .  .  .  The  uproar  commenced  with 
a  general  '  coughing  down.'  Several  persons  then  moved 
towards  the  door,  making  a  great  noise  in  their  progress ; 
a  young  woman  went  off  in  a  fit  of  hysterics,  uttering 
loud  shrieks,  whilst  a  mob  outside  besieged  the  doors  of 
the  building.  A  cry  of  '  Fire  ! '  was  raised,  followed  by 
an  announcement  that  the  church  doors  were  closed,  and 
a  rush  was  made  to  burst  them  open.  Some  persons 
cried,  '  Turn  him  out ! '  '  Put  out  his  lights  ! '  In  the 
galleries  the  uproar  was  at  its  height,  whistling,  the  noise 
of  cat-calls,  and  such  cries  as  are  heard  in  theatres, 
hurrahing,  &c.,  echoed  throughout  the  edifice.  Mr.  Ingle 
still  persisted  to  read  his  text,  but  was  quite  inaudible, 
and  the  row  increased,  some  of  the  congregation  waving 
their  hats,  standing  on  the  seats,  brawling,  roaring,  and 
gesticulating,  like  a  mob  at  an  election. 


Ixxviii  INTEODUCTION 

These  doings  were  in  the  far  West.  Let  us 
now  see  how  matters  fared  in  the  metropolis.  On 
March  15,  1845,  there  was  an  excited  meeting  held 
in  the  parish  of  St.  Greorge's-in-the-East,  London. 
The  chairman  of  the  meeting  was  the  senior 
churchwarden  of  the  parish,  who  bore  the  ill- 
omened  name  of  Liquorish.  But  the  orator  of  the 
occasion  was  a  certain  Mr.  Baddeley,  of  whom 
history,  as  far  as  I  know,  records  nothing  more. 
Mr.  Baddeley  made  a  speech  which  appears  to 
have  evoked  much  applause,  and  which,  no  doubt, 
expressed  the  genuine  feelings  of  the  man  and  of 
those  who  cheered  him.  The  following  extracts 
will  give  some  idea  of  his  line  of  argument : — 

It  was  lamentable  that  a  parish  consisting  of  upwards 
of  43,000  souls  should  be  disturbed  to  its  centre  at  the 
will  of  one  individual,  who  at  his  mere  pleasure  disturbed 
and  deranged  the  beautiful  and  solemn  ceremonial  of 
church  service  which  had  been  handed  down  to  us  un- 
changed for  more  than  two  centuries.  These  were  not 
the  days  to  trifle  with  the  laity.  Men  could  not  now  be 
dragooned  into  a  belief  or  compelled  to  a  ceremonial. 
Fortunately  there  was  an  organ  of  incalculable  power 
and  extent  to  preserve  and  support  the  creed  of  their  fore- 
fathers :  the  '  Times  '  was  that  powerful  organ.  .  .  .  Their 
rev.  rector  talked  of  peace  while  he  was  at  the  very  time 
fomenting  discord  by  introducing  a  Jim  Crow  sort  of 
buffoonery  into  the  peculiarly  solemn  and  impressive 
decencies  of  our  simple  and  affecting  church  service. 
Until  this  innovation  was  palmed  upon  them  there  was 
not  a  more  happy  or  united  parish  in  the  whole  kingdom 
than  theirs. 


INTEODUCTION  Ixxix 

Other  speakers  followed  in  a  similar  strain,  and 
then  the  '  Times  '  reporter  relates  a  pathetic  inci- 
dent : — 

Several  old  parishioners,  some  of  whom  were  affected 
even  to  tears,  came  forward  to  protest  against  practices 
which  drove  them  from  the  church  where  their  fathers 
had  worshipped,  and  where  healing  memories  of  holy 
things  soothed,  while  they  sanctified,  their  Sabbath  visits. 
All  this,  they  said,  was  changed  by  the  practice  of  their 
rector.  The  son  passed  by  the  grave  of  his  father  ;  the 
widower,  of  his  wife  ;  the  mother,  of  her  child, — to  seek 
in  some  remote  and  unaccustomed  house  of  worship  that 
spiritual  sustenance  which  the  novel  practices  of  their 
new  rector  had  rendered  unacceptable  at  his  hands. 

Scarcely  less  pathetic  was  the  declaration  of  a 
gentleman  at  Hurst,  in  Berkshire.  This  gentleman 
is  described  as  c  the  owner  of  Hurst  House/  and 
here  is  his  tale  of  woe — tinged,  however,  with  one 
ray  of  pensive  satisfaction : — 

Alluding  to  his  aunt,  who  attained  the  great  age  of 
100  years,  he  observed  that  it  was  a  satisfactory  reflection 
to  him  and  his  brother  that  the  latter  days  of  their  ex- 
cellent aunt  were  not  embittered  by  such  proceedings  as 
had  lately  taken  place  in  the  parish,  and  that  she  had  not 
lived  to  be  driven,  by  the  mistaken  course  which  had 
been  pursued,  from  the  church  which  she  had  so  many 
years  attended. 

The  fate  from  which  the  Angel  of  Death  had 
mercifully  snatched  this  good  old  lady  was  that  of 
witnessing  the  collection  of  an  offertory  and  hearing 


Ixxx  INTEODUCTION 

the  Church  Militant  Prayer  on  Sundays  on  which 
the  Holy  Communion  was  not  celebrated. 

But  what  were  these  '  novel  practices,'  the  '  Jim 
Crow  sort  of  buffoonery,'  which  had  wrought  such 
dire  havoc  in  a  once  peaceful  and  happy  parish  ? 
Spectatum  admissi  risum  teneatis,  amid  ?  '  The 
very  head  and  front  of '  the  rector's  '  offending  ' 
was  that  he  preached  in  the  surplice,  turned  to  the 
East  at  the  recital  of  the  Creed,  and  that  '  the  re- 
sponses after  the  Commandments,  which  are  prayers 
for  mercy,  and  not  songs,  are  usually  chanted.' 

In  1859-60  there  was  a  recurrence  of  these 
disgraceful  riots  in  St.  G-eorge's-in-the-East,  and 
I  remember  an  amusing  anecdote  which  I  once 
heard  Dean  Stanley  relate  in  connection  with  them. 
The  Dean  had  gone  one  Sunday  evening  to  see  for 
himself  the  cause  of  the  riots.  The  church  was 
filled  with  an  excited  congregation,  but  the  service 
went  on  with  tolerable  decorum  till  the  officiating 
clergyman  retired  into  the  vestry  before  the  sermon. 
There  were  a  few  moments  of  nervous  silence,  with 
craning  of  necks  in  the  direction  of  the  vestry. 
Presently  the  door  of  the  vestry  was  opened,  and 
an  excited  female,  in  front  of  Dean  Stanley,  clapped 
her  hands  and  exclaimed,  c  Thank  God  !  it's  black.' 
The  Rector  had  agreed  to  a  compromise,  and  the 
preacher  appeared  arrayed  in  a  black  gown.  If 
that  worthy  female  is  still  alive,  she  may  often 
have  had  cause  since  then  to  exclaim,  '  Thank 
God !  it's  white.' 


INTEODUCTION  Ixxxi 

But  the  parish  of  St.  George's  was  not  the  only 
parish  in  the  East  of  London  which  was  vexed 
with  a  perverse  rector's  '  Jim  Crow  sort  of  buf- 
foonery.' There  was,  for  example,  the  parish  of 
St.  Leonard's,  Shoreditch,  the  parishioners  of  which 
compelled  the  rector  to  agree  to  a  compromise. 
The  '  mark  of  the  beast '  in  that  parish  was  the 
chanting  of  the  Psalms ;  and  this  the  rector  agreed 
to  give  up.  c  But  what  wretched  creatures  are 
they,'  exclaimed  the  '  Times,'  '  who  attempted  to 
introduce  that  chanting  in  parish  churches  ?  ' 

The  surrender  of  the  rector,  however,  was  not 
absolute  and  complete  : — 

To  vitiate  the  good  to  be  derived  from  this  return  to 
the  usual  service  [the '  Times  '  goes  on  to  say],  Mr.  Evans 
means  to  introduce  a  portion  of  the  new  version  of  the 
Psalms  after  the  third  collect.  Does  he?  Then  we 
hope  he  will  be  hooted  out  of  the  church  immediately. 
Whence  does  he  learn  this  change  ?  Not  from  the  rubric 
certainly ;  which  says,  *  in  CHOIRS  and  PLACES  WHERE 
THEY  SING  1  ' — that  is,  not  in  parish  churches,  but  in 
cathedrals  and  places  where  erewhile  monks  unhappily 
chanted  to  each  other  in  responsive  strains. 

The  riots  and  public  meetings  culminated  at 
last  in  a  series  of  petitions  to  Parliament,  which 
led  to  a  lively  debate  in  the  House  of  Lords. 
Lord  Fortescue  presented  these  petitions  in  a  toler- 
ably moderate  speech,  and  the  drift  of  the  docu- 

1  Here  and  elsewhere  I  copy  the  capitals  and  italics  of  the  original. 

e2 


Ixxxii  INTEODUCTION 

merits  may  be  gathered  from  the  following  quota- 
tion : — 

That  certain  ancient  and  conflicting  laws  and  regula- 
tions of  the  Church  exist  which,  being  incompatible  with 
the  condition  and  Protestant  feelings  of  the  people,  had, 
with  the  tacit  consent  of  bishops,  clergy,  and  laity,  long 
fallen  into  disuse. 

The  petitioners  accordingly  deprecate  the  re- 
vival of  '  these  obsolete  laws  and  regulations,'  and 
suggest  *  such  a  revision  and  alteration  of  the 
rubrics,  canons,  and  laws  of  the  Church  as  shall 
establish  uniformity  adapted  to  the  present  times.' 
Earl  Fortescue  took  the  same  line  in  his  speech. 
He  pleaded  earnestly  for  lawlessness — that  is,  for 
violation  of  the  rubrics — on  behalf  of  the  Evan- 
gelical party. 

It  will  be  observed  that  the  High  Church  clergy 
of  that  day  were  not  accused  of  lawlessness,  or  of 
disobedience  to  bishops,  so  much  as  of  over-scrupu- 
losity in  carrying  out  the  law  and  yielding  a  too 
thorough  obedience  to  the  bishops  :— 

In  this  debate  the  Bishop  of  Norwich  said  : — 

The  right  rev.  prelate  [Phillpotts]  had  said  that  we 
are  under  a  stringent  vow  to  obey  the  rubrics.  We  none 
of  us  are  under  such  stringent  vow ;  for  we  never  can 
obey  all.  If  we  are  told  of  a  stringent  obligation  to  obey 
the  rubrics,  we  must  obey  all.  Who  has  a  right  to  say, 
'  That  part  I  will  admit,  and  that  part  I  will  dispense 
with  ? '  We  must  have  the  whole  rubric,  and  nothing 
but  the  rubric.  That  cannot  be. 


INTRODUCTION  Ixxxiii 

Bishop  Blomfield  protested  against  this  view  of 
the  matter,  and  said  the  clergy  were  bound  to  obey 
'  those  parts  which  we  can  obey.'  The  Bishop  of 
Norwich,  however,  retorted  with  effect : — 

There  are  parts  of  the  rubric  which  we  can  obey  and 
do  not.  '  This  part,'  it  is  said,  '  I  adhere  to,  and  that 
part  I  do  not.'  We  have  no  right  to  make  such  a  choice, 
and  obey  certain  parts  and  not  others. 

It  having  been  found  impracticable  to  alter  the 
law  by  constitutional  means,  recourse  has  been 
had  to  the  courts  of  law,  and  negatives  have  thus 
been  '  read  into '  some  of  the  unpopular  affirmative 
injunctions  of  the  rubrics.  In  this  ingenious  way 
the  party  which  sixty  years  ago  was  persecuted  for 
being  too  rigidly  law-abiding,  now  finds  itself 
exposed  to  imprisonment  and  temporal  ruin  for  the 
crime  of  '  lawlessness.'  It  reminds  one  of  the  old 
ordeal  for  witches  in  Scotland.  The  reputed  witch 
was  flung  into  deep  water  to  test  her  innocence. 
If  she  went  to  the  bottom  and  was  drowned,  she 
was  declared  not  guilty.  If  she  floated  on  the 
surface,  she  was  taken  out  and  burnt. 

The  two  bishops  who  particularly  excited  the 
wrath  of  the  '  Times  '  were  Bishop  Blomfield  of 
London  and  Bishop  Phillpotts  of  Exeter ;  and 
their  guilt  consisted  in  having  recommended  their 
clergy  to  preach  in  the  surplice  and  have  an 
offertory  every  Sunday.  For  this  heinous  offence 
the  two  prelates  in  question  were  pelted  by  the 
Press,  day  by  day  and  week  after  week,  with 


Ixxxiv  INTRODUCTION 

language   of    which   the  following    extracts    will 
furnish  a  fair  average  specimen  : — 

Would  any  man  believe — any  reasonable  man — that 
after  distracting  his  diocese,  harassing  the  clergy,  and 
provoking  the  laity  to  an  opposition  unprecedented  in  the 
annals  of  our  Church  by  his  own  wilful  and  unjustifiable 
measures,  he  can  turn  round  in  his  place  in  Parliament 
and  ask  what  it  all  means?  The  whole  kingdom  can 
answer  you,  my  Lord  Bishop.  Far  and  wide  and  on  all 
sides,  the  rumours  of  your  doings  in  Exeter  have  been 
circulated ;  and  although  your  lordship  '  has  no  time 
for  the  newspapers,'  it  is  not  so  with  all.  The  studies 
and  labours  which  consume  your  valuable  hours,  and 
hinder  you  from  being  acquainted  with  the  topics  of  the 
day,  are  fortunately  unknown  to  the  majority.  ...  Let 
things  remain  as  they  are.  Let  the  service  of  the  Church 
of  England  be  administered  as  it  has  been  since  the  days 
of  our  great-grandfathers.  We  want  no  enactments  to 
change  or  reform  what  is  in  itself  complete  and  sufficient. 

The  ritual  '  of  our  great-grandfathers  ' — that  is, 
the  great-grandfathers  of  1845 — '  complete  and 
sufficient ' !  I  wonder  where  the  Church  of 
England  would  be  now  if  the  Press  of  that  day  had 
had  its  way,  and  the  *  complete  and  sufficient ' 
style  of  worship  of  the  '  great-grandfathers '  were 
still  in  vogue.  The  Liberation  Society  would 
certainly  have  had  no  raison  d'etre,  for  there  would 
be  no  Established  Church — perhaps  no  Church  at 
all — to  destroy. 

The  '  Times '  resumed  its  theme  in  another 
leader : — 


INTEODUCTION  Ixxxv 

'  What  is  all  this  about  ? '  says  the  right  rev.  prelate 
[Phillpotts],  in  reply  to  Lord  Fortescue  in  the  Upper 
House  of  Parliament  last  Thursday ;  and  the  inquiry  was 
received  with  general  laughter.  Why,  the  '  ABOUT  '  is  this 
— and  a  singular  ABOUT  it  is — that  two  bishops  out  of 
twenty-six  have,  in  what  they  call  pastoral  letters  to  their 
clergy,  ordained  a  different  mode  of  performing  the 
Divine  Service  of  the  Church  from  that  to  which  the 
people  of  England,  for  whose  use  the  liturgy  was  com- 
piled, had  been  immemorially  accustomed.  .  .  .  Why 
cannot  the  baffled  prelate  quietly  '  give  in,'  and  if  possible 
let  the  mischief  which  himself  and  his  poor  infatuated 
clergy  have  occasioned  be  forgotten  ?  But  if  both  the 
bishops  stand  firm  to  what  they  have  called  their  convic- 
tions, they  ought  to  retire  from  the  bench ;  and  if  they 
are  conscientious  men  they  will  retire.  The  Church  of 
England  was  not  made  for  them,  but  for  the  people 
of  England ;  and  the  people  of  England — God,  we  are 
sure,  blesses  them  in  the  effort — will  have  the  Sacred 
Service  of  the  Church  as  their  sires  and  grandsires 
had  it.  Should  the  prelates  in  question  still  adhere  to 
their  errors,  we  shall  show  further  reasons  for  removing 
them. 

And  all  for  recommending  a  weekly  offertory 
and  the  use  of  the  surplice  in  the  pulpit !  In 
another  article  the  '  Times '  asked,  in  a  fit  of 
sorrowful  indignation : — 

Is  our  Church  still  to  flourish,  the  pride  and  strength 
of  our  land ;  or  are  her  congregations  to  be  dispersed,  her 
temples  to  become  dilapidated,  her  services  to  be  deserted, 
her  friends  to  be  alienated  and  disgusted,  from  the  per- 
verse and  wanton  intrusion  of  ceremonies  and  observ- 
ances which,  displeasing  as  they  are  to  the  people, 


Ixxxvi  INTRODUCTION 

answer  no  one  corresponding  end,  and  are  carrying 
division  and  destruction  into  the  very  bosom  of  our 
Church  ? 

'  The  sacred  service  of  the  sires  and  grandsires  ' 
is  happily  a  thing  of  the  past.  The  three-decker  is 
rapidly  becoming  a  tradition  ;  and  so  also  are  the 
cosy  square  pews,  and  Tate  and  Brady,  and  the 
parson-and-clerk  duet,  and  the  slovenliness  which 
was  called  '  simplicity/  and  the  infrequent  services 
and  mouldy  mildewed  walls,  and  all  the  other 
constituents  of  '  the  sacred  service '  which  the 
'  sires  and  grandsires  *  loved.  Even  the  black 
gown,  against  which  I  have  never  been  able  to  get 
up  any  special  antipathy,  will  soon  be  as  antiquated 
as  frills  and  periwigs.  If  any  of  the  gentlemen 
who  did  the  ecclesiastical  leaders  for  the  '  Times ' 
sixty  years  ago  are  still  in  the  land  of  the 
living  and  still  in  the  same  mind,  with  what 
feelings  must  they  regard  the  revolution  that  has 
borne  them  onward  like  fossils  from  a  bygone 
era  !  One  of  them  at  least  was  evidently  alive  and 
unconverted  as  late  as  February  of  the  year  1881. 
Long  had  he  endured  his  grief  in  silence ;  but 
Dean  Church's  plea  for  tolerating  the  Kitualists 
was  more  than  he  could  bear :  and  in  a  leading 
article  in  the  '  Times '  of  February  10,  1881,  he 
gave  vent  to  the  pent-up  musings  of  years.  There 
was  still,  he  thought,  a  chance  of  getting  rid  of 
the  surplice  and  not  in  the  pulpit  only,  but  in  all 
ministrations.  Here  is  our  Eip  van  Winkle's 


INTEODUCTION  Ixxxvii 

diagnosis  of  the  ecclesiastical  situation,  which  Mr. 
Delane,  who  had  a  satirical  humour,  allowed  him 
to  air  in  the  leading  journal  :— 

What  is  it  that  now  divides  the  population  of  this 
island  into  two  camps,  with  an  almost  impassable  gulf 
between  them?  It  is  not  the  chasuble,  or  the  mixed 
chalice,  or  incense,  or  any  of  the  points  at  issue  in  the 
'  Ritualist '  controversy.  It  is  the  surplice,  and  whatever 
goes  with  it  in  the  shape  of  forms  and  liturgies.  If 
people  are  to  do  what  they  please,  retaining  the  name  of 
Church  people,  then,  for  a  few  thousands  who  would  wish 
to  see  the  celebrant  in  the  chasuble,  there  are  a  few 
millions  who  would  rather  see  him  in  his  everyday  attire. 
Supposing  this  policy  of  toleration  defined,  formulated, 
and  enacted,  for  one  million  who  might  endure  the 
chasuble,  five  millions  would  request  their  minister  to  dis- 
card the  rag  of  Popery  {i.e.  the  surplice].  As  a  matter  of 
taste,  they  would  be  justified  in  so  doing,  for  the  surplice  is 
very  much  out  of  place  in  a  building  and  style  of  worship 
as  near  as  may  be  to  that  of  Dissenters. 

And  then  the  writer  gives  his  own  idea  of 
the  kind  of  worship  best  calculated  to  win  the 
masses : — 

After  a  hymn,  given  out  by  the  minister  in  a  black 
gown,  a  scripture-reader  rises  in  his  everyday  coat  and 
reads  a  selection  from  the  Prayer-Book,  with  a  short 
lesson,  and  with  the  relief  of  several  more  hymns.  The 
minister  ascends  the  pulpit,  offers  a  long  extempore 
prayer,  and  then  talks  to  the  people  very  pleasantly  for 
half  an  hour.  He  is  full  of  anecdote  from  religious 
journals  and  biographies,  from  his  own  personal  expe- 
riences and  his  conversations  with  his  flock.  He  alludes 
to  departed  members  of  it  as  saints  in  glory,  and  recalls 


Ixxxviii  INTRODUCTION 

their  favourite  text  and  utterances.  All  this  is  charming 
to  small  shopkeepers,  humble  citizens,  cooks,  and  house- 
maids. They  will  come  from  any  distance,  and  even 
desert  their  Bethels,  Zions,  and  Ebenezers,  for  the 
preacher. 

In  the  year  1875  the  maligned  Tractarians  were 
avenged,  when  the  two  Archbishops  and  their 
suffragans — all  but  two — issued  a  Pastoral  of  which 
the  opening  paragraph  says  :— 

We  acknowledge  humbly  and  thankfully  the  mercies 
vouchsafed  by  Almighty  God  to  the  Church  of  England. 
By  His  blessings  on  the  labours  of  the  clergy  and  laity 
our  Church  has  of  late  been  enabled  in  a  marvellous 
manner  to  promote  His  glory,  and  to  advance  His 
kingdom  both  at  home  and  abroad.  If  we  judge  by 
external  signs — the  churches  built,  restored,  and  endowed, 
during  the  last  forty  years  ;  the  new  parishes  formed  in 
that  time,  especially  in  our  great  towns  and  cities ;  the 
vast  sums  of  money  voluntarily  contributed  for  the 
promotion  of  religious  education;  the  extension  of  the 
Church  in  the  Colonies  and  in  foreign  countries,  including 
the  foundation  of  more  than  fifty  new  Sees;  the  great 
increase  in  the  number  of  persons  of  all  classes  who,  by 
prayers  and  labours,  assist  in  the  work  of  converting 
souls  to  Christ, — all  bear  witness  to  the  zeal  and  earnest- 
ness of  the  clergy  and  laity  of  the  English  Church. 

That  date  of  '  forty  years/  so  prolific  in  the  zeal 
and  earnestness  and  good  works  which  the  Arch- 
bishops and  Bishops  so  handsomely  recognise, 
covers  exactly  the  Tractarian  movement  from  its 
origin  to  its  partial  development  into  what  is  called 
*  Eitualism.'  But  if  the  Bishops  of  the  previous 


INTRODUCTION  Ixxxix 

generation,  and  the  Press,  and  excited  politicians, 
had  had  their  way,  that  harvest  of  good  things 
which  the  Episcopal  Pastoral  enumerates  had 
never  been.  And  may  we  not  add  that  but  for 
the  unsympathetic — I  will  even  say  brutal — treat- 
ment which  the  early  Tractarians  received  from 
those  in  authority  in  Church  and  State,  and  from 
the  organs  of  public  opinion  in  the  Press,  that 
harvest  would  have  been  more  bountiful  still  ? 

Have  we  not  a  lesson  and  a  serious  warning  in 
all  this  ?  Are  we  on  the  eve  of  another  blunder  ? 
Is  there  to  be  more  proscription,  another  Public 
Worship  Eegulation  Bill,  more  prosecutions,  un- 
limited latitude  in  doctrine  and  ritual  in  one  direc- 
tion, rigid  conformity  to  an  arbitrary  Procrustean 
standard  in  another  ?  I  hope  not.  For  I  am  quite 
sure  that  the  Church  of  England  as  an  Establish- 
ment will  not  survive  another  experiment  of  that 
sort.  Let  it  be  remembered  that  in  this  matter 
we  have  not  to  do  with  a  number  of  ritualistic 
clergy.  We  have  to  do  with  a  powerful,  an  earnest, 
and  a  large  and  rapidly  increasing  body  of  the  laity, 
who  sit  very  loosely  to  the  Establishment,  and 
who  will  unite  to  overthrow  it  if  another  attempt  is 
made  to  pervert  or  tighten  the  law  against  them, 
while  relaxing  it  in  favour  of  all  others.  Let  it  also  be 
considered  that  in  these  days  of  sudden  democratic 
upheavals,  a  coalition  between  the  Bitualists  and 
the  Labour  and  Radical  parties  might  very  possibly 
precipitate  disestablishment  at  the  next  general 


xc  INTRODUCTION 

election.  Mr.  Gladstone  once  said  to  me  :  '  If  the 
disestablishment  of  the  English  Church  ever  come 
to  pass,  it  is  likely  to  come  less  by  an  attack  from 
without  than  by  a  revolt  from  within.'  In  itself 
the  Establishment  has  no  attraction  for  the 
Eitualists.  Its  good  things — its  dignities,  its 
honours,  its  emoluments — are  not  for  them.  They 
and  their  services  are  maintained  chiefly  by  the 
voluntary  offerings  of  the  laity,  and  these  would 
increase  in  the  event  of  disestablishment. 

Moreover,  the  Eitualists  have  behind  them  the 
great  bulk  of  the  High  Church  party  :  not  because 
these  are  in  full  sympathy  with  them — for  they 
deplore  much  that  many  Eitualists  do — but  because 
they  love  fair  play ;  and  they  do  not  think  it  fair 
play  to  press  what  is  at  best  a  doubtful  law  against 
the  Eitualists,  while  allowing,  if  not  encouraging, 
all  other  parties  to  set  at  nought  rubrics  of  which 
the  meaning  is  neither  disputable  nor  disputed. 
Let  me  take  my  own  case.  I  belong  to  a  Cathedral 
Chapter  which — myself  included — sets  the  law, 
even  as  interpreted  by  the  Judicial  Committee,  at 
defiance.  When  the  Purchas  Judgment  was 
pronounced  the  Dean  and  Chapter  of  Eipon  pro- 
vided themselves  with  a  cope,  in  which  they,  as 
well  as  the  Bishop,  officiated  at  the  times 
appointed.  The  Dean  was  Dr.  McNeile,  of  Liver- 
pool fame,  and  the  Bishop,  Dr.  Bickersteth  ;  both 
strong  Evangelicals.  When  I  became  a  member 
of  the  Chapter  of  Eipon  some  twenty  years  ago,  the 


INTEODUCTION  xci 

cope  had  disappeared,  and  I  have  never  been  able 
to  discover  why  or  whither.  But  there  we  are, 
a  thoroughly  lawless  Chapter,  whether  tested  by 
the  law  of  the  Church  or  the  law  of  the  Judicial 
Committee.  And  I  believe  that  nearly  all  the 
Cathedral  Chapters  in  England  are  in  a  similar 
condition  of  flagrant  lawlessness.  Will  not  the 
instinct  of  justice,  which  lies  deep  in  the  British 
breast,  rise  in  revolt  against  any  despotic  attempt 
to  compel  some  wretched  Eitualist,  slaving,  it  may 
be,  among  the  poor  and  miserable,  to  discard  his 
chasuble,  while  Cathedral  dignitaries  and  bishops 
refuse  to  wear  the  vestment  which  the  law  con- 
fessedly makes  obligatory  on  them  ?  And,  what  is 
still  worse,  a  number  of  clergy  publicly  deny  or 
explain  away  some  of  the  fundamental  articles  of 
the  creed  of  Christendom,  while  doubt  is  freely  cast 
on  the  genuineness  or  authenticity  of  almost  every 
book  in  the  Old  and  New  Testaments.  Yet  no  one 
dreams  of  a  Eoyal  Commission  to  inquire  into  these 
things  and  recommend  a  remedy. 

This  one-sided  sort  of  discipline  will  never  do. 
The  law  must  be  enforced  all  round  without  fear  or 
favour,  or  it  must  not  be  enforced  against  one  party 
only:  I  care  not  which  party.  The  Royal  Com- 
missioners have  kept  their  secret  well,  and  I  have 
no  idea  what  their  recommendations  may  be. 
But  if  the  Church  is  to  remain  established,  there 
must  be  no  recourse  to  Parliament,  either  to  alter 
any  of  the  rubrics  or  to  infringe  the  ancient  con- 


xcii  INTRODUCTION 

stitution  of  the  Church — e.g.  by  a  Parliamentary 
abolition  of  the  bishop's  veto  on  what  he  may 
regard  as  a  mischievous  prosecution.  This  is  one 
of  the  inherent  rights  of  the  episcopal  office,  which 
Mr.  Gladstone  considered  so  essential  that  he 
intimated  to  the  Episcopate  that  unless  they 
guarded  it  during  the  passage  of  the  Public 
Worship  Eegulation  Bill  through  Parliament  he 
would  no  longer  oppose  Disestablishment.  There 
is  a  large  multitude  of  Church  people,  lay  and 
clerical,  and  no  lovers  of  Ritualism,  who  would 
view  with  such  repugnance  the  idea  of  flinging  the 
doctrine  and  ritual  of  the  Church  into  the  melting- 
pot  of  the  Houses  of  Parliament  that,  to  avoid 
such  a  catastrophe,  they  would  strain  every  nerve 
to  force  Disestablishment  in  this  very  Parliament ; 
a  contingency  by  no  means  impossible  in  the 
event  of  a  lead  from  a  strong  body  of  Church- 
men. 

But  I  may  be  asked  :  '  If  you  oppose  an  appeal 
to  Parliament,  what  is  your  remedy  ?  '  Well,  my 
first  remedy  is  patience.  Patience  on  the  part  of 
our  rulers  would  have  saved  Wesley,  and  the  vast 
spiritual  force  which  bears  his  name,  to  our 
Church.  Patience  would  have  saved  to  our 
Church  the  splendid  intellectual  and  moral  gifts  of 
John  Henry  Newman,  and  the  galaxy  of  bright 
names  who  followed  his  lead,  and  made  the  Church 
of  England  much  the  poorer  by  their  secession. 
The  patience  of  Convocation  in  resisting  the 


INTEODUCTION  xciii 

revolutionary  proposals  of  the  Eoyal  Commission 
in  1689  saved  the  Church  of  England  from  dis- 
ruption. The  patience  of  the  Bishops  in  abstaining 
from  seeking  Parliamentary  power  to  crush  the 
Tractarians,  much  as  they  abused  them,  during 
the  period  of  excitement  and  riot  which  I  have  just 
described,  enabled  the  Church  to  meet  with  such 
wonderful  success  the  new  political  and  social 
forces  which  the  era  of  the  Eeform  Act  called  into 
being.  The  Eitual  troubles  of  our  day  are  but 
gentle  breezes  compared  with  the  hurricane  which 
raged  and  howled  against  chanted  Psalms,  frequent 
celebrations  of  the  Holy  Communion,  and  the  use 
of  the  surplice  in  the  pulpit.  As  late  as  1851, 
bishops  actually  refused  to  license  any  curate  who 
would  not  give  a  written  pledge  against  preaching 
in  the  surplice,  on  the  specific  ground  that  the 
surplice  was  illegal  in  the  pulpit.  Suppose  a 
Eoyal  Commission  had  been  appointed  at  that 
time  to  inquire  into  the  causes  of  the  riots,  and 
that  Commission  had  proposed  and  Parliament 
had  passed  a  law  against  frequent  celebrations, 
choral  services,  and  preaching  in  the  surplice,  is 
there  a  man  of  sense  in  the  kingdom  now  who 
would  not  denounce  such  stupid  and  criminal 
folly?  I  venture  to  predict  that  some  twenty 
years  hence  most  of  the  things  which  are  now 
objected  to  in  public  worship  will  cause  as  little 
stir  as  choral  services  and  the  surplice  in  the  pulpit 
do  now. 


xciv  INTRODUCTION 

I  have  no  doubt  that  there  has  been,  and  still 
is,  much  that  is  censurable  in  the  Eitualistic  move- 
ment. That  is  generally  the  characteristic  of  any 
movement  which  is  enthusiastic  and  energetic. 
It  is  sure  to  make  proud  flesh,  as  did,  indeed,  the 
Tractarian  movement ;  and  the  secular  and  ecclesi- 
astical authorities  of  the  day  could  see  nothing  but 
the  proud  flesh,  which  they  denounced  accordingly 
as  a  mass  of  putrid  matter  which  ought  to  be  got 
rid  of  as  speedily  as  possible. 

The  proud  flesh  of  the  Tractarian  movement 
sloughed  off  in  due  time,  and  all  that  was  noble 
and  good  in  it — which  surely  was  the  larger  part — 
has  been  assimilated  into  the  life  and  system  of  the 
Church.  The  proud  flesh  of  the  Eitualistic  move- 
ment will  also  drop  as  persecution  ceases ;  and  the 
bishops  of  the  next  generation  will  do  it  that 
justice  which  the  bishops  of  this  have  done  to 
the  much  calumniated  Oxford  Movement. 

Much  of  the  strength  of  the  Eitualists,  as  a 
party,  is  derived  from  the  moral  support  which  they 
receive  from  the  bulk  of  the  High  Church  party. 
That  support  they  will  continue  to  receive  as  long 
as  the  bishops  enforce  the  judgments  of  the 
Judicial  Committee  as  the  law  of  the  Church  and 
of  the  land.  But  let  the  Bishops  fall  back  on  the 
inherent  power  of  their  office.  Let  them  act  as 
'  fathers  in  God,'  and  not  as  State  officials  enforcing 
discredited  legal  decisions.  Let  them  claim  the 
jus  liturgicum  which  belongs  to  their  office  as  chief 


INTRODUCTION  xcv 

pastors,  and  judge  each  case  as  it  arises  on  its 
merits,  regardless  of  the  Judicial  Committee,  and 
I  am  bold  to  believe  that  they  will  find  their  task 
much  easier.  The  readers  of  this  volume  will  see 
what  my  own  view  is  as  to  the  ritual  authorised 
by  the  Ornaments  Eubric.  I  believe  the  meaning 
of  the  rubric  to  be  perfectly  plain  and  not  in  the 
least  ambiguous  to  anyone  who  approaches  it  with 
knowledge  of  the  subject  and  with  an  open  and 
unprejudiced  mind.  But  all  things  that  are  lawful 
are  not  necessarily  expedient;  and  the  High 
Church  party  would,  I  believe,  support  bishops 
who  forbade  the  introduction  of  even  lawful  ritual 
on  congregations  unprepared  for  it.  The  bishops 
who  have  succeeded  best  in  putting  down  disorder 
in  their  dioceses  are  the  bishops  who  have  relied 
on  their  spiritual  office  and  judiciously  ignored  the 
Judicial  Committee. 

There  is  one  consideration  in  connection  with 
this  subject  which  men  of  the  world,  whatever  their 
views  may  be,  would  do  well  to  take  seriously  to 
heart.  It  is  much  to  the  credit  of  the  working 
classes  of  this  country  that  they  have  never  shown 
any  disposition  to  combine  in  their  own  interest 
against  the  owners  of  property  and  privilege  as 
such.  Who  can  doubt  that  this  is  largely  due  to 
their  being  still  under  the  influence,  ideals,  and 
sentiments  of  Christianity,  even  when  they  sit 
loosely  towards  the  Christian  Creed  ?  But  if  the 
masses  lose  hold  of  their  instinctive  belief  in  a 

f 


xcvi  INTEODUCTION 

future  world  where  the  destiny  of  man  is  dependent 
on  his  conduct  here,  why  should  they  acquiesce  in 
social  and  political  arrangements  which  do  not 
appear  to  many  of  them  to  be  to  their  benefit  ? 
Let  them  lose  their  faith  in  a  heaven  beyond  the 
grave,  and  will  they  not  make  haste  to  seek  their 
heaven  here  ?  They  are  the  majority,  and  they 
have  shown  their  power  in  the  present  Parliament. 
Their  power  is  likely  to  go  on  increasing,  and  the 
omens  seem  to  point  to  the  decadence  of  Chris- 
tian influences  in  the  next  generation.  How  will 
they  be  affected  then  towards  the  established  order 
of  things  ?  This  was  so  well  put  by  a  powerful 
writer  a  quarter  of  a  century  ago  that  I  am 
tempted  to  quote  his  words  : — 

What  will  be  the  result,  what  the  possible  catastrophe, 
when  this  doctrine  [of  a  future  life]  is  no  longer  ac- 
credited ; — when  it  is  discarded  as  a  delusion  ; — when  it 
is  resented  as  a  convenient  deception  and  instrument  of 
oppression  ; — when  the  poor  man  is  convinced  that  there 
is  no  wealth  of  gold  and  jewels  awaiting  him  in  the 
spiritual  kingdom; — that  if  he  is  wretched  here  he  is 
wretched  altogether ; — that  what  he  lacks  now  will  never 
hereafter  be  made  good  to  him ; — that  the  promises  and 
hopes  dangled  before  him  to  keep  him  quiet  have  been 
mere  moonshine,  and  that  in  very  truth  the  bank  in 
which  he  had  insured  his  fortune,  in  which  he  had  in- 
vested all  his  savings  to  have  a  provision,  in  which  he 
had  toiled  with  indefatigable  industry  and  endured  with 
exemplary  patience,  is  a  fraudulent  insolvent ; — when,  in 
fine,  he  wakes  up  with  a  start  to  the  bewildering  con- 
viction that  if  he  is  to  rest,  to  be  happy,  to  enjoy  his  fair 


INTRODUCTION  xcvii 

share  of  the  sunshine  and  the  warmth  of  life,  he  must  do 
it  now,  here,  at  once,  without  a  day's  delay  ?  Will  there 
not  come  upon  him  that  sort  of  feverish  haste  to  be  in 
luxury  and  at  peace,  to  immediatize  all  that  earth  can 
yield  him,  to  sink  the  uncertain  future  in  the  passing 
present,  which  has  been  depicted  in  such  vivid  colours  as 
pervading  and  maddening  the  daily  thought  and  talk  of 
the  Socialists  and  Communists  of  the  French  metropolis  ?  l 

The  writer  of  this  passage  was  the  well-known 
publicist,  W.  E.  Greg.  He  thought,  after  careful 
inquiry,  that  the  salutary  and  restraining  influ- 
ences, which  had  till  then  been  operating  on  the 
characters  of  the  working  classes,  were  rapidly  on 
the  wane.  '  Among  working  men,'  he  said,  *  it  is 
absolute  atheism,  and  is  complicated  by  a  marked 
feeling  of  antagonism  towards  the  teachers  of 
religion,  a  kind  of  resentment  growing  out  of  the 
conviction  that  they  have  been  systematically 
deluded  by  those  who  ought  to  have  enlightened 
them.'  He  adds  in  a  note  :  '  I  am  assured,  however, 
that  this  can  scarcely  be  stated  as  broadly  as  a  few 
years  ago — considerably  owing  to  the  HituaUstsS 

Is  it  wise,  even  from  a  temporal  point  of  view, 
to  wage  war  against  a  religious  movement  which, 
with  all  the  extravagances  and  follies  that  may  be 
imputed  to  it,  won  this  testimony  from  a  very  able 
public  writer  who  had,  as  a  Unitarian,  no  sympathy 
with  Eitualism  ?  The  influence  of  the  Eitualists 
has  increased  immensely  among  the  masses  since 

1  Rocks  Ahead,,  pp.  131,  141-143. 

f  2 


xcviii  INTRODUCTION 

Mr.  Greg  wrote.  I  was  greatly  struck  by  the  re- 
port of  a  conference  between  representative  labour 
leaders  and  leading  Eitualists  at  Mirfield  a  few 
weeks  ago.  The  conference  was  marked  by  a  most 
cordial  feeling  and  the  utmost  frankness  on  both 
sides.  One  of  the  representatives  of  labour  declared 
emphatically,  without  dissent  on  the  part  of  his 
colleagues,  that  the  one  party  in  all  the  Churches 
with  which  the  labour  party  had  any  sympathy 
was  that  of  the  Kitualists.  The  severest  censors 
of  the  Eitualists  commonly  admit  their  self-denial 
and  labours  of  love  among  the  poor,  but  add  that 
this  is  not  the  question.  I  submit  that  it  is  very 
largely  the  question.  The  very  purpose  of  religion 
is  to  purify  and  elevate  humanity ;  to  make  human 
beings  better  parents,  better  children,  better 
servants  and  masters — in  a  word,  better  citizens. 
A  mode  of  religion  which  does  this  ought  surely 
to  be  tolerated,  if  not  cherished  ;  but  to  flout  and 
suppress  it  would  be  an  act  of  criminal  folly  which 
its  opponents  would  probably  live  to  deplore, 
perhaps  when  too  late. 

'  I'd  give  the  lands  of  Deloraine 
Dark  Musgrave  were  alive  again.' 

But  the  wish  did  not  restore  '  dark  Musgrave  '  to 
life,  and  religious  forces,  like  human  life,  are  more 
easily  destroyed  than  revived.  Like  the  meek 
Sicambrian  of  old,  men  sometimes  live  to  '  burn 
what  they  adored,  and  adore  what  they  had 


INTKODUCTION  xcix 

burnt.' l  Look  now  at  the  scenes  of  the  religious 
riots  described  above,  and  you  will  find  the  pre- 
sent generation  cherishing  what  their  forefathers 
reviled.  So  it  always  is.  One  generation  stones 
the  prophets,  and  another  adorns  their  sepulchres. 
I  should  like  to  see  a  Eoyal  Commission  appointed 
to  inquire  into  the  moral  influence  of  so-called 
Ritualism  in  parishes  where  it  has  been  fairly 
tested.  The  investigations  of  such  a  Commission 
would,  I  venture  to  think,  be  infinitely  more 
valuable  than  inquiries  into  the  modes  of  public 
worship  in  such  parishes.  Mr.  Henry  Blunt,  late 
rector  of  St.  Andrew's,  Holborn,  a  genial  Broad 
Churchman,  speaking  to  me  once  about  the  clergy 
of  St.  Alban's,  Holborn — a  district  carved  out  of  his 
parish — said  :  '  Well,  Eitualism  does  not  appeal  to 
me.  But  I  must  be  just.  What  is  now  the  parish 
of  St.  Alban's  used  to  be  morally  one  of  the  worst 
in  London.  These  men  have  worked  wonders. 
They  have  regenerated  the  place.  You  would 
not  know  it  to  be  the  same  place.  "  By  their  fruits 
ye  shall  know  them."  The  fruits  of  these  men  are 
good,  and  it  would  be  a  sin  and  a  calamity  to  inter- 
fere with  them.' 

We  are  on  the  threshold  of  a  new  era.  The 
democracy  is  coming  to  the  front  and  has  already 
realised  its  power;  and  the  question  is  whether 

1  Mitis,  depone  colla,  Sicamber :  adora  quod  incendisti,  incende 
quod  adorasti.  Address  of  Bemigius,  Bishop  of  Eheims,  to  Clovis 
when  baptizing  him.  See  Gregory  of  Tours,  torn,  ii.,  1.  ii.,  p.  177. 


c  INTRODUCTION 

its  power  shall  be  exercised  under  the  influence  of 
Christian  principles  or  under  the  influence  of  pure 
secularism.  That  depends  on  the  attitude  of  the 
Christian  Church  towards  the  legitimate  aspira- 
tions and  ideals  of  the  working  classes.  If  that 
attitude  is  intelligent,  appreciative,  sympathetic, 
I,  for  one,  have  no  fear  of  the  working  classes. 
I  am  glad  that  they  have  been  able  to  return  so 
large  a  number  of  able  and  earnest  representatives 
to  Parliament.  These  men,  I  am  confident,  will 
be  no  party  to  any  one-sided  legislation  for  the 
suppression  of  Ritualism.  If  the  Church  of 
England  is  to  survive  as  an  Establishment  she 
must  find  room  and  work  for  all  parties  who  are 
loyal  to  the  creed  of  Christendom  and  are  really 
doing  good  work  within  her  fold.  They  all  act  as 
a  check  on  each  other.  The  Evangelicals  check 
the  perhaps  natural  tendency  of  the  High  Church 
party  towards  formalism  and  too  much  reliance  on 
external  observances.  The  High  Church  party 
checks  the  tendency  of  the  Evangelicals  to  depre- 
ciate rites  and  ceremonies  and  tradition,  and  to 
rely  too  exclusively  on  private  judgment  and  the 
subjective  side  of  religion.  The  Broad  Church 
party  has  done  good  service  in  discrediting  the 
worship  of  the  mere  letter  of  the  Bible  as  a  cri- 
terion of  infallibility,  forgetting  that  the  Bible, 
standing  alone,  presents  different,  and  sometimes 
contrary,  aspects  of  the  truth  to  different  minds  ; 
while,  on  the  other  hand,  both  the  Evangelical  and 


INTEODUCTION  ci 

High  Church  parties  act  as  checks  on  the  tendency 
of  the  Broad  Church  party  to  accept  with  uncritical 
subservience  the  rash  conclusions  of  Dutch  and 
German  critics  in  the  sphere  of  Biblical  criticism. 
Kitualism,  too,  within  reasonable  limits,  has  its  use 
as  a  reminder  that  man  has  eyes  and  ears  as  well 
as  reason,  and  that  truths  reach  his  soul  through 
those  avenues  which  might  never  reach  it  through 
the  understanding  alone.  We  need  a  policy  of 
reasonable  comprehension  and  elasticity,  not  of 
narrowness  and  proscription.  I  trust  that  the 
policy  recommended  by  the  Koyal  Commission 
points  in  that  direction.  If  it  points  in  the  opposite 
direction,  it  will  probably  live  in  history  as  the 
proximate  cause  of  the  disestablishment,  perhaps 
the  disruption,  of  the  ancient  Church  of  England. 

A  passion  for  uniformity  has  been  growing  for 
some  years  both  in  the  political  and  religious  world. 
Larger  States  absorb  smaller  ones  and  destroy 
their  individual  characteristics  in  art,  literature, 
philosophy,  and  in  the  development  of  human 
character.  I  am  not  at  all  sure  that  the  unifica- 
tion of  Italy,  with  its  crushing  burden  of  arma- 
ments and  suppression  of  local  laws  and  customs, 
has  been  an  unmixed  gain  to  the  people  of  Italy. 
I  am  sure  that  the  unification  of  Germany — what- 
ever be  its  results  in  material  wealth — has  been  a 
loss  to  the  nation  intellectually  and  morally.  The 
worship  of  Mars  and  Mammon  has  superseded  the 
cultivation  of  the  Muses.  We  have  been  saved  so 


cii  INTRODUCTION 

far  from  this  result  of  the  material  expansion  of 
our  worldwide  Colonies,  by  the  gift  of  autonomy, 
which  has  enabled  them  to  develop  in  various 
directions  according  to  their  several  environments. 

The  same  passion  for  uniformity  has  invaded 
our  institutions.  It  may  be  questioned  whether 
our  judicature  has  gained  by  the  abolition  of  a 
number  of  our  ancient  courts  and  jurisdictions, 
and  I  have  no  doubt  that  the  abolition  of  our  old 
ecclesiastical  courts  and  judges  has  been  an  un- 
mitigated evil. 

The  passion  for  uniformity  has  now  reached 
the  precincts  of  our  educational  system,  and  it  is 
sought  to  establish  one  universal  type  prescribed 
and  moulded  by  the  State,  in  spite  of  John 
Stuart  Mill's  impressive  warning  in  the  following 
passage  : — 

It  is  not  by  wearing  down  into  uniformity  all  that  is 
individual  in  themselves,  but  by  cultivating  it  and  calling 
it  forth,  within  the  limits  imposed  by  the  rights  and 
interests  of  others,  that  human  beings  become  a  noble 
and  beautiful  object  of  contemplation. 

If  the  Government  would  make  up  its  mind  to  require 
for  every  child  a  good  education,  it  might  save  itself  the 
trouble  of  providing  it.  It  might  leave  parents  to  obtain 
education  where  and  how  they  pleased,  and  content  itself 
with  helping  to  pay  the  school  fees  of  the  poorer  class  of 
children  and  defraying  the  entire  school  expenses  of  those 
who  have  no  one  else  to  pay  for  them. 

The  objections  which  are  urged  with  reason  against 
State  education  do  not  apply  to  the  enforcement  of 


INTRODUCTION  ciii 

education  by  the  State,  but  to  the  State  taking  upon 
itself  to  direct  that  education,  which  is  a  totally  different 
thing.  That  the  whole  or  any  large  part  of  the  educa- 
tion of  the  people  should  be  in  State  hands,  I  go  as  far 
as  anyone  in  deprecating.  All  that  has  been  said  of  the 
importance  of  individuality  of  character  and  diversity 
in  opinions  and  modes  of  conduct  involves,  as  of  the 
same  unspeakable  importance,  diversity  of  education.  A 
general  State  education  is  a  mere  contrivance  for  mould- 
ing people  to  be  exactly  like  one  another ;  and  as  the 
mould  in  which  it  casts  them  is  that  which  pleases  the 
predominant  power  in  the  Government,  whether  this  be 
a  monarch,  a  priesthood,  an  aristocracy,  or  the  majority 
of  the  existing  generation,  in  proportion  as  it  is  efficient 
and  successful,  it  establishes  a  despotism  over  the  mind, 
leading  by  natural  tendency  to  one  over  the  body.  An 
education  established  and  controlled  by  the  State  should 
only  exist,  if  it  exist  at  all,  as  one  among  many  competing 
experiments,  carried  on  for  the  purpose  of  example  and 
stimulus  to  keep  the  others  up  to  a  certain  standard  of 
excellence.1 

I  do  not  apply  this  to  the  Education  Bill  of  the 
present  Government  in  particular.  In  my  humble 
judgment  we  have  been  on  the  wrong  tack  on 
education  for  some  years.  The  Act  of  1870  un- 
questionably undermined  the  foundation  of  the 
denominational  system  by  establishing  by  its  side 
an  undenominational  system  supported  by  the  rates, 
and  bound  in  course  of  time,  by  its  unlimited 
command  of  the  public  purse,  to  starve  the  deno- 
minational schools  out  of  existence.  The  next 

1  Essay  on  Liberty,  pp.  113,  190. 


civ  INTRODUCTION 

mistake  was  to  pay  the  school  fees  for  all  children 
indiscriminately.  And  the  third  was  the  Education 
Act  of  1902,  which  placed  denominational  schools 
on  the  rates,  without  recognising  the  correlative 
necessity  of  admitting  supreme  public  control ; 
which  destroyed  the  principle  of  school  trusts  ;  and 
which  made  the  exclusion  from  the  schools  of  every 
parish  priest  in  the  land  a  possibility. 

The  same  passion  for  uniformity  has  swept 
away  all  the  endowments  scattered  over  the 
country  for  enabling  the  children  of  poor  parents 
to  get  a  first-class  education.  These  endowrments 
are  now  thrown  open  to  the  public,  thus  enabling 
the  rich  to  compete  at  a  most  unfair  advantage 
with  the  poor,  for  whom  the  endowments  were 
originally  intended. 

But  it  is  in  the  sphere  of  religion  that  this 
mania  for  uniformity  has  done  most  mischief.  In 
the  Church  of  Borne  it  has  destroyed  local  uses 
and  customs,  and  reduced  public  worship  to  one 
monotonous  type  of  dull  uniformity.  Our  re- 
formers introduced  it  in  this  country  by  abolishing 
the  separate  diocesan  Uses  instead  of  reforming 
and  simplifying  them.  And  ever  since  then  our 
rulers  in  Church  and  State  have  been  striving 
after  this  Procrustean  uniformity.  Vain  quest ! 
Nature,  with  her  thousand  tongues,  protests 
against  it.  There  is  no  uniformity  in  nature. 
What  we  behold  everywhere  is  an  infinite  and 
glorious  variety,  pervaded  by  an  all-embracing 


INTEODUCTION  cv 

unity  and  order.  It  was  a  favourite  doctrine  of 
Leibnitz  that  amongst  the  familiar  objects  of  our 
daily  experience  there  is  no  perfect  identity. 
While  walking  one  day  in  Kensington  Gardens 
with  the  Princess  of  Wales,  who  was  an  ardent 
admirer  of  the  great  philosopher,  Leibnitz  began 
to  expound  and  illustrate  his  thesis ;  and  turning 
to  a  gentleman  in  attendance  on  her  Koyal 
Highness,  he  challenged  him  to  produce  two  leaves 
from  tree  or  shrub  which  were  exactly  alike  in 
every  particular.  The  challenge  was  accepted, 
and  Leibnitz  was  proved  to  be  right.  All  in 
Nature  proceeds  in  endless  variety.  And  not  in 
the  vegetable  world  only.  No  two  animals  of  the 
same  species  are  precisely  alike ;  nor  any  two 
human  beings,  either  in  body  or  in  mind.  Infinite 
change,  illimitable  novelty,  inexhaustible  difference 
— these  are  the  foundations  upon  which  Nature 
builds  and  ratifies  her  purpose  of  individuality. 

And  as  with  external  objects,  so  with  human 
actions :  amidst  their  infinite  approximations  and 
affinities  they  are  separated  by  circumstances  of 
never-ending  diversity.  History  may  furnish  her 
striking  correspondences,  Biography  her  splendid 
parallels ;  Eome  may  in  some  cases  appear  but  the 
mirror  of  Athens,  England  of  Eome  ;  yet,  after  all, 
no  character  can  be  cited,  no  great  transaction, 
no  revolution,  no  catastrophe  of  nations,  which, 
in  the  midst  of  its  resemblance  to  distant  corre- 
spondences in  other  ages,  does  not  include  features 


cvi  INTRODUCTION 

of  abundant  distinction  and  individualising  charac- 
teristics, so  many  and  so  important  as  to  yield  its 
own  peculiar  matter  for  philosophical  meditation, 
and  its  own  separate  moral. 

Uniformity  in  religion,  therefore,  bears  upon  its 
very  front  the  brand  of  imposture.  It  exists  no- 
where, and  never  has  existed  ;  and  the  pursuit  of 
it  has  been  the  bane  of  the  Church  of  England. 
The  sooner  it  is  abandoned  the  better.  But  unity 
we  may  have  without  uniformity  :  unity  of  creed, 
unity  in  all  essentials,  but  an  elastic  variety  in  all 
the  accessories  of  public  worship  and  in  other  non- 
essentials.  That  is  the  principle  on  which  I  have 
always  shaped  my  own  conduct.  If  I  officiate  in 
a  church  where  it  is  the  custom  to  celebrate  at 
the  north  end,  I  celebrate  at  the  north  end.  If  in 
a  church  where  the  black  gown  is  worn  in  the 
pulpit — a  rare  sight  now — I  preach  in  the  black 
gown.  If  in  a  church  where  the  celebrant  wears 
a  chasuble,  I  wear  a  chasuble. 

I  trust  that  prudence  and  statesmanship  have 
presided  over  the  deliberations  of  the  Royal  Com- 
mission, and  that  they  will  recommend  a  policy  of 
patience,  forbearance,  and  the  exercise  of  spiritual 
authority  instead  of  coercive  legislation,  which 
would  certainly  be  a  ruinous  remedy.  The  Bishops 
have  more  power  than  they  think  over  the  popular 
mind  if  they  will  only  grasp  the  nettle  and  take 
the  lead.  The  Primate  has  a  well-deserved 
reputation  for  statesmanship.  Let  him  tell  the 


INTEODUCTION  cvii 

public  plainly  that  the  principal  observances  now 
in  question — e.g.  Eucharistic  vestments,  incense, 
reservation  of  the  Sacrament  for  the  sick — are 
no  more  Popish  than  are  cassocks  and  surplices. 
They  are  in  use  in  all  the  Churches  of  the  East : 
Greek  Orthodox,  Eussian,  Armenian,  Jacobite, 
Coptic,  Bulgarian  ;  and  also  in  Lutheran  Germany 
and  Protestant  Scandinavia.  To  call  them  Popish, 
therefore,  is  to  talk  nonsense,  and  is  playing  into 
the  hands  of  Popery  in  addition.  For  if  Popery  is 
as  old  as  these  practices,  it  is  the  religion  of  that 
Primitive  Church  to  which  the  Church  of  England 
has  always  appealed  against  the  innovations  of 
Eome. 

Let  us  have  done  with  these  vituperative  epi- 
thets. The  danger  of  the  day  for  England  is  not 
Popery,  but  irreligion  ;  not  positive  atheism  indeed, 
but  indifference  to  all  spiritual  truths  and  ideas ; 
a  determination  to  live  in  the  present  and  let  the 
future  look  after  itself ;  to  eat,  drink,  and  be  merry, 
regardless  of  the  warning  :  '  Thou  fool,  this  night 
thy  soul  shall  be  required  of  thee.'  The  weekly 
reminder  of  Sunday  is  becoming  a  thing  of  the 
past  with  the  rich  and  leisured  class  :  the  week- 
end institution  is  practically  abolishing  it.  Is  this 
a  time,  then,  to  put  down  any  religious  move- 
ment, whatever  be  its  occasional  aberrations  and 
eccentricities,  which  helps  to  keep  alive  and  pro- 
pagate belief  in  the  unseen  world,  and  in  a  life 
beyond  the  grave  where  the  weary  and  heavy-laden 


cviii  INTRODUCTION 

shall  find  rest  ?  Who  that  has  read  can  ever 
forget  the  pathos  of  the  great  Tractarian's  vale- 
diction to  the  short-sighted  and  ungrateful  Church 
which  knew  not  how  to  use  his  brilliant  gifts  and 
loyal  service  ? — 

0  my  mother,  whence  is  this  unto  thee,  that  thou 
hast  good  things  poured  upon  thee  and  canst  not  keep 
them,  and  bearest  children,  yet  darest  not  own  them  ? 
Why  hast  thou  not  the  skill  to  use  their  services  nor  the 
heart  to  rejoice  in  their  love  ?  How  is  it  that  whatever 
is  generous  in  purpose  and  tender  or  deep  in  devotion, 
thy  flower  and  thy  promise,  falls  from  thy  bosom  and 
finds  no  home  within  thine  arms  !  Who  hath  put  this 
note  upon  thee,  to  have  '  a  miscarrying  womb  and  dry 
breasts,'  to  be  strange  to  thine  own  flesh  and  thine  eyes 
cruel  towards  thy  little  ones  ?  Thine  own  offspring,  the 
fruit  of  thy  womb,  who  love  thee  and  would  toil  for  thee, 
thou  dost  gaze  upon  them  with  fear,  as  though  a  portent, 
or  thou  dost  loathe  as  an  offence  ;  at  best  thou  dost  but 
endure,  as  if  they  had  no  claim  but  on  thy  patience,  self- 
possession  and  vigilance,  to  be  rid  of  them  as  easily  as 
thou  mayest.  Thou  makest  them  '  stand  all  the  day  idle, ' 
as  the  very  condition  of  thy  bearing  with  them  ;  or  thou 
biddest  them  to  be  gone  where  they  will  be  more  welcome  ; 
or  thou  sellest  them  for  nought  to  the  stranger  that  passes 
by.  And  what  wilt  thou  do  in  the  end  thereof  ?  1 

Another  choice  spirit,  also  vilified  by  the  same 
party  which  hounded  Newman  out  of  the  Church 
of  England,  made  a  similar  complaint.  c  I  wish 
to  God,'  said  Eobertson  of  Brighton,  '  we  had  a 
little  soldier's  spirit  in  our  Church  !  .  .  .  But  no  ! 

1  Newman's  Sermons  on  Subjects  of  the  Day,  p.  460. 


INTRODUCTION  cix 

the  Church  of  England  will  endure  no  chivalry,  no 
dash,  no  effervescing  enthusiasm.  She  cannot 
turn  it  to  account  as  Eome  turns  that  of  her 
Loyolas  and  Xaviers.'  Happily  this  is  less  true 
now  than  it  was  when  Kobertson  wrote  these 
words,  and  I  will  not  allow  myself  to  believe  that 
a  Eoyal  Commission  under  the  chairmanship 
of  so  able  and  experienced  a  statesman  as  Lord 
St.  Aldwyn,  and  assisted  by  so  able  and  cautious 
and  tolerant  and  justice-loving  a  prelate  as  the 
Archbishop  of  Canterbury,  will  take  so  retrograde 
and  fatal  a  step  as  to  recommend  a  policy  of  coer- 
cion and  repression,  and  that  against  one  party 
only  in  the  Church ;  a  policy  which  would  be  the 
beginning  of  the  end  of  the  Establishment. 

I  have  written  this  book  from  a  feeling  of  duty 
and  with  a  deep  sense  of  responsibility :  I  hope  also 
in  a  spirit  of  charity  and  fair  play.  I  believe  that 
the  Church  of  England  is,  in  the  providence  of  God, 
predestined  to  a  great  purpose,  nothing  less  than 
to  be  the  means,  at  the  time  appointed  by  the  All- 
wise,  to  re-unite  Christendom.  The  striking  passage 
in  which  the  Ultramontane  De  Maistre  gave  expres- 
sion to  that  feeling  has  often  been  quoted,  but  will 
bear  quoting  again.  '  If  Christians,'  he  said,  '  are 
ever  to  be  drawn  towards  each  other,  it  seems  that 
the  initiative  must  come  from  the  Church  of  Eng- 
land. Presbyterianism  was  French  in  its  origin, 
and  was  thus  marked  by  exaggeration  and  lacking 
in  adaptability.  But  the  Anglican  Church  touches 


ex  INTBODUCTION 

us  with  one  hand,  and  with  the  other  touches 
those  whom  we  cannot  reach.'  And  therefore  this 
uncompromising  Papalist  saw,  and  had  the  candour 
to  avow,  that  the  Church  of  England  is  '  very 
precious  (tres  precieuse) '  as  a  mediator  in  the 
reunion  of  Christendom,  *  like  one  of  those  chemical 
intermediaries  capable  of  reconciling  elements  mutu- 
ally repellent.' l  Let  us  beware  of  putting  obstacles 
in  the  way  of  Grod's  designs.  '  He  that  believeth 
shall  not  make  haste.'  The  Church  of  England  is 
worth  preserving,  and  this  volume  is  intended  as 
a  small  contribution  towards  that  end.  Spartam 
nactus  es  ;  hanc  exorna. 

1  Considerations  sur  la  France,  Chapter  ii. 


CHAPTER  I 

QUEEN  ELIZABETH'S  EELIGIOUS  BELIEF  AND 
INTENTION  ON  HER  ACCESSION 

THE  first  factor  of  importance  in  our  interpretation 
of  the  Ornaments  Eubric  is  the  fact  that  both  it 
and  the  corresponding  clause  in  her  Act  of  Uni- 
formity owe  their  existence  to  Queen  Elizabeth. 
Foiled  in  her  desire  to  restore  the  first  Prayer- 
Book  of  Edward  VI.,  she  determined  to  obtain 
Parliamentary  authority  for  supplementing  the 
deficiencies  of  the  Second  Book  by  additions, 
especially  in  ceremonial,  in  concert  with  the 
Metropolitan  or  statutory  Commissioners.  This 
is  placed  beyond  a  doubt  by  a  letter  from  Parker 
to  Cecil,  in  which  the  Archbishop  says  : — 

First,  I  said,  as  her  Highness  talked  with  me  once  or 
twice  on  that  point,  and  signified  that  there  was  one 
proviso  in  the  Act  of  the  Uniformity  of  Common  Prayer, 
that  by  law  is  granted  unto  her,  that  if  there  be  any 
contempt  or  irreverence  used  in  the  ceremonies  or  rites  of 
the  Church  by  the  misusing  of  the  orders  appointed  in 
the  Book,  the  Queen's  Majesty  may,  by  the  advice  of  her 
Commissioners,  or  Metropolitan,  ordain  and  publish  such 
further  ceremonies,  or  rites,  as  may  be  most  for  the 
reverence  of  Christ's  holy  mysteries  and  sacraments,  and 

B 


2  ELIZABETH'S  EELIGIOUS  POLICY 

but  for  which  law  her  Highness  would  not  have  agreed 
to  divers  orders  of  the  Book.  And  by  virtue  of  which 
law  she  published  further  order  in  her  Injunctions  both 
for  the  Communion  bread  and  for  the  placing  of  the 
Tables  within  the  quire.1 

The  Queen's  purpose  in  this  was  two-fold : 
first,  the  bent  of  her  own  mind  was  strongly  in 
favour  of  the  ancient  constitution,  theology,  and 
ceremonial  of  the  Catholic  Church,  purged  of 
mediaeval  accretions  in  doctrines  and  ceremonial ; 
next,  her  political  necessities  coincided  with  her 
religious  convictions.  Let  us  examine  these  two 
points  in  the  light  of  facts. 

Immediately  on  her  accession  Elizabeth  told 
Count  de  Feria,  the  Spanish  ambassador,  that  she 
was  resolved  to  restore  religion  as  it  had  been  left 
by  her  father.2  In  my  examination  before  the  Eoyal 

1  Correspondence  of  Archbishop  Parker,  p.  375. 

2  Documents  from  Simancas  relating  to  the  Beign  of  Elizabeth. 
Translated  from  the   Spanish,  and  edited  by  Spencer  Hall,  F.S.A., 
Librarian  of  the  Athenaeum,  London,  1865. 

Mr.  Martin  Hume's  translation  is  as  follows  : — 

1  Subsequently  in  conversation  with  me  she  said  two  or  three  bad 
things.  One  was  that  she  wished  the  Augustinian  Confession  to  be 
maintained  in  her  realm,  whereat  I  was  much  surprised,  and  found 
fault  with  it  all  I  could,  adducing  the  arguments  I  thought  might 
dissuade  her  from  it.  She  then  told  me  it  would  not  be  the'Augustinian 
Confession,  but  something  like  it,  and  that  she  differed  very  little 
from  us,  as  she  believed  that  God  was  in  the  Sacrament  of  the 
Eucharist,  and  only  dissented  from  three  or  four  things  in  the  Mass.' 

Sir  Lewis  Dibdin's  comment  is  :  '  That  does  not  look  as  if  Queen 
Elizabeth  was  altogether  consistent  or  frank  in  her  expression  of 
views  to  De  Feria.'  I  suggested  that  as  Elizabeth's  remark  arose  out 
of  what  she  was  saying  about  the  Eucharist,  I  supposed  that  her 
reference  to  the  Augsburg  Confession  related  to  the  Lutheran  doctrine 
on  that  subject.  Sir  Lewis  answered : — 


AS  DECLAEED  ON  HEE  ACCESSION  3 

Commission  on  Ecclesiastical  Discipline,1 1  quoted 
this  as  a  key  to  Elizabeth's  feelings  and  policy.  My 
suggestion  was  received  with  surprise  and  incredu- 
lity, especially  by  Sir  Lewis  Dibdin,  Dr.  Gibson  (now 
Bishop  of  Gloucester),  and  Mr.  Drury,  Principal  of 
Eidley  Hall.  Sir  Lewis  Dibdin  dismissed  as  an 
impossibility  the  idea  that  Elizabeth  could  desire 
or  hope  to  restore  religion  as  it  had  been  left  by 
the  author  of  the  Six  Articles  and  the  polemical 
treatise  against  Luther.  And  his  incredulity  was 
further  strengthened  by  a  later  remark  of  the 
Queen  to  De  Feria  in  a  long  and  private  confer- 
ence which  the  ambassador  had  with  her  by  com- 
mand of  Philip.  De  Feria  urged  her  on  the  part 
of  Philip  to  leave  religion  as  it  was  settled  at  the 
death  of  Mary,  instead  of  restoring  it  as  it  had 
been  left  by  her  father.  To  this  she  answered 
that  she  desired  to  establish  in  her  kingdom  the 
Augustan  [Augsburg]  Confession  of  Faith,  or 
another  like  it  (u  otra  cosa  como  aquella) ;  that 
she,  in  fact,  differed  little  from  us  (the  Eoman 
Catholics),  because  she  believed  that  Christ  (Dios) 
was  present  in  the  Sacrifice  of  the  Eucharist ;  and 
that  in  the  Mass  she  disapproved  of  only  two  or 
three  things  (cosas) ;  that  for  herself,  she  thought 

'  I  will  not  follow  you  there,  but  what  I  do  notice  is  that  within  a 
week  or  two  of  her  apparently  telling  him  that  she  would  like  to 
restore  the  state  of  things  as  in  her  father's  time,  she  says  that  for 
herself  she  accepts  the  Confession  of  Augsburg  [or  something  like  it], 
which  was  the  very  point  on  which  her  father  split  with  the  foreign 
Protestants.' 

1  See  Appendix  A,  pp.  270,  311. 

B  2 


4  DISCEEDITED  BY  DE.  GIBSON 

to   be   saved    quite   as    much   as   the    Bishop   of 
Rome.' 

These  alleged  opinions  and  intentions  of  Eliza- 
beth appeared  to  Sir  Lewis  Dibdin  so  strange  and 
inconsistent  that  he  discredited  the  veracity  of 
De  Feria  (whom  he  regarded  as  an  unscrupulous 
man),  or  believed  that  Elizabeth  was  fooling  him. 
But  De  Feria  was  an  able  man,  and  he  had  no 
motive  to  deceive  his  master,  but  every  motive  to 
tell  him  the  exact  truth.  He  was,  moreover,  on 
friendly  terms  with  the  Queen,  who  had  no  tempta- 
tions at  that  time  to  mislead  him  as  to  her  religious 
opinions  and  intentions.  Her  confidences  to  him 
are  quite  consistent  with  her  convictions  and  policy, 
and  her  reference  to  the  Augsburg  Confession  by 
no  means  justifies,  as  we  shall  see  as  we  proceed, 
the  inferences  drawn  by  Sir  Lewis  Dibdin  and 
Dr.  Gibson.  The  latter  especially  challenged 
vehemently  the  possibility  of  Elizabeth  having  any 
intention  or  wish  to  restore  religion  as  it  had  been 
left  by  her  father.  His  view  was  that  there  was 
an  impassable  chasm  between  the  state  of  religion 
left  by  Henry  and  that  initiated  by  his  son  on 
coming  to  the  throne.  He  laboured  this  point  with 
great  insistence,  as  the  reader  will  find  by  turning 
to  the  official  report  of  my  evidence  given  in  the 
Appendix.  I  shall  return  to  Dr.  Gibson  at  a  later 

1  Documents  from  Sima/ncas  relating  to  the  Reign  of  Elizabeth. 
Translated  from  the  Spanish  and  edited  by  Spencer  Hall,  F.S.A.,  p.  59. 
Chapman  and  Hall,  1865.  Of.  Froude,  Hist.  vii.  p.  82,  and  Strype, 
Ann.  pt.  1,  3.  Strype  gives  a  wrong  date  here. 


AND  SIE  LEWIS  DIBDIN  5 

stage.  Meanwhile,  let  us  examine  Sir  Lewis 
Dibdin's  view  that  Elizabeth's  reference  to  the 
Augsburg  Confession  shows  that  £  she  was  making 
a  fool '  of  De  Feria  in  telling  him  that  she  wished  to 
adopt  the  Augsburg  Confession,  or  something  like  it. 
'  Is  it  not  common  knowledge,'  he  asked, '  that  it  was 
the  Augsburg  Confession  over  which  Henry  VIII. 
quarrelled  with  the  foreign  Protestants  ?  He  would 
not  accept  the  Augsburg  Confession,  but  put  out 
the  Ten  Articles  instead,  and  that  was  the  point 
of  divergence  (I  think  about  1535)  between  Henry 
VIII.  and  foreign  Protestants.'  This  he  con- 
sidered conclusive  proof  that  Elizabeth  was  not 
sincere  in  telling  De  Feria  that  she  was  resolved  to 
restore  religion  as  it  was  at  the  death  of  her  father, 
including  some  modified  form  of  the  Augsburg 
Confession.  But  a  good  deal  had  happened  between 
1535  and  1547,  when  her  father  died.  It  is  plain 
from  the  context  that  the  Queen's  reference  to  the 
Augsburg  Confession  was  limited  to  the  doctrine 
of  the  Eucharist  and  possibly  to  the  doctrine  of 
Confession,  which  was  closely  connected  with  the 
Eucharist.  What,  then,  does  the  Augsburg  Con- 
fession teach  on  these  doctrines,  and  what 
Henry  VIII. 's  attitude  towards  it  ? 


CHAPTEE  II 

THE  AUGSBURG  CONFESSION  AND  HENRY  VIII. 

THE   Article  De  Missa  opens  with   the   following 
words  : — 

Our  churches  are  falsely  accused  of  having  abolished 
the  Mass,  for  the  Mass  is  retained  among  us,  and  is 
celebrated  with  the  greatest  reverence ;  nearly  all  the 
ceremonies  are  kept  and  used,  except  that  some  German 
hymns  are  mingled  with  the  Latin  for  the  edification  of 
the  people.1 

The  Article  goes  on  to  say  that  ceremonies  are 
needful  to  teach  the  unlearned,  and  that  the 
ministry  of  God's  Word  may  excite  some  to  true 

1  '  Falso  accusantur  ecclesise  nostrse,  quod  missain  aboleant.  Re- 
tinetur  enim  missa  apud  nos,  et  summa  reverentia  celebratur ; 
servantur  et  usitatae  ceremonise  fere  omnes,  praeterquam  quod  Latinis 
cantionibus  admiscentur  alicubi  Germanicae,  quoe  additae  sunt  ad 
docendum  populum.  Ideo  etiam  opus  est  ceremoniis  ut  doceant 
imperitos,  et  traetatio  verbi  Dei  excitet  aliquos  ad  verum  timorem,  et 
fidem,  et  invocationem.  Et  non  solum  Paulus  prsecepit  uti  lingua 
intellecta  populo,  sed  etiam  ita  constitutum  est  humano  jure.  Assuefit 
populus,  ut  una  utantur  Sacramento,  siqui  sunt  idonei.  Id  quoque 
auget  reverentiam  et  religionem  publicarum  ceremoniarum.  Nulli 
enim  admittuntur  nisi  prius  explorati.  .  .  .  Cum  igitur  et  ad  cere- 
moniam  assuefiat  populus,  et  de  usu  admoneatur,  fiunt  missse  apud 
nos  rite  et  pie,  et  geruntur  omnia  in  ecclesia  majore  cum  gravitate  et 
reverentia  quam  olim.'  Confessio  Augustana.  Excusa  Vitembergae, 
Anno  MDXL. 


ON  THE  MASS  AND  AURICULAR  CONFESSION  7 

fear,  and  faith,  and  prayer,  for  only  worthy  com- 
municants can  use  the  Sacrament  beneficially. 
Therefore  none  are  admitted  unless  they  are  first 
examined.  This  is  put  more  plainly  in  the  Article 
De  Confessione  : — 

Confession  is  not  abolished  in  our  churches.  For  the 
Body  of  Christ  is  not  given  except  after  examination  and 
absolution.  And  the  people  are  taught  most  diligently 
concerning  the  doctrine  of  absolution,  as  to  which  here- 
tofore there  was  great  silence.  Men  are  taught  to  seek 
absolution  as  a  rule,  because  it  is  the  voice  of  God,  and 
is  pronounced  by  the  command  of  God.1 

So  far,  Henry  VIII.  would  find  very  little  to 
quarrel  with  in  the  Augsburg  Confession.  We 
know,  moreover,  that  in  the  early  days  of  Eliza- 
beth's reign  there  was  a  strong  party  among  the 
Keformers  who  were  anxious  to  take  the  Augsburg 
Confession  as  a  pattern  in  doctrine  and  ceremony 
for  the  Kef  ormation  settlement  in  England.  Strype, 
after  describing  the  '  Device  '  for  the  reformation 
of  religion  offered  to  Cecil,  with  the  Queen's  privity, 
'  at  the  very  beginning  of  her  reign,'  writes  : — 

A  difficult  work  this  was  now  taking  in  hand :  the 
reformation  of  corrupt  religion  being  the  harder  to  bring 
to  pass  because  there  was  not  only  in  this  juncture  a 
formidable  Popish  party  to  struggle  with,  but  a  Lutheran 
party  also.  For  there  was  not  a  few  now  that,  in  the 

1  '  Confessio  in  ecclesiis  apud  nos  non  est  abolita.  Non  enim  solet 
porrigi  Corpus  Domini  nisi  antea  exploratis  et  absolutis.  Et  docetur 
populus  diligentissime  de  fide  absolutionis,  de  qua  antea  hsec  tempora 
magnum  erat  silentium.  Docentur  homines  ut  absolutionem  plurimj 
faciant  quia  sit  vox  Dei,  et  mandate  Dei  pronuncietur,' 


8  HENRY  VIII.  AND 

alteration  of  religion,  would  endeavour  to  have  it  settled 
according  to  the  Augustan  Confession  :  whereby  a  real 
and  substantial  Presence  might  be  acknowledged  in  the 
Eucharist ;  crucifixes  and  images  might  be  retained  in  the 
churches ;  the  wafer  put  into  the  receiver's  mouth,  and 
such  like.  And  of  this  the  learned  men  of  the  foreign 
reformed  churches  were  much  afraid.  I  find  a  letter 
written  anno  1559,  from  Bullinger,  chief  pastor  in  Zurich, 
to  Utenhovius,  another  learned  man,  now  at  Frankford 
(but  under  King  Edward  VI.  belonging  to  the  Dutch 
Church  in  London),  signifying  how  many  strove  to  have 
the  Augustan  Confession  received  here.  '  I  see,'  said  he, 
'  no  little  disturbance  like  to  arise  even  in  England,  if,  as 
some  do  require,  the  Confession  of  Augsburg  be  there 
received  :  a  thing  unsuitable  in  many  respects.' l 

Elizabeth's  desire  therefore  (expressed  to  De 
Feria)  to  sanction  in  her  kingdom  the  Augustan 
Confession  of  Faith,  or  something  like  it,  is  thus 
indirectly  confirmed. 

But  what  about  her  father  ?  Was  he  likely  to 
tolerate  anything  of  the  sort  ?  And  could  Eliza- 
beth have  been  serious  in  telling  the  Spanish 
ambassador  '  that  she  was  resolved  to  restore 
religion  as  her  father  had  left  it '  ?  What  was 
Henry's  attitude  towards  the  Augsburg  Confes- 
sion ?  On  his  invitation  some  leading  representa- 
tives of  German  Protestantism  came  over  to 
England,  there  to  discuss  the  possibility  of  union 
with  the  English  Church  on  the  basis  of  the 
Augsburg  Confession.  The  second  embassy  was 
in  the  year  1539.  The  King  appointed  a  body  of 

1  Annals,  i.  pt.  1,  76. 


THE  AUGSBUEG  CONFESSION  9 

Anglican  divines,  including  Tunstall  of  Durham, 
to  confer  with  the  Germans,  who  drew  up  a 
number  of  articles  for  which  they  claimed  the 
approval  of  Luther,  Melanchthon,  and  certain  cities 
and  princes  of  Germany,  their  adherents.  In  this 
document  the  Germans  accepted  episcopacy,  and 
the  primacy  of  the  Bishop  of  Eome,  while  reject- 
ing his  supremacy.  Provided  an  agreement  were 
arrived  at  in  matters  of  doctrine,  they  thought  an 
agreement  '  concerning  choice  of  meats,  holy  days 
and  ceremonies,  might  be  made  easy  .  .  .  since 
it  is  not  possible  that  the  world  might  stand  with- 
out ceremonies  and  man's  ordinances,  seeing 
that  all  innovations  without  necessity  ought  to  be 
excluded.'  They  held,  with  some  qualifications, 
that  confession  is  '  profitable.'  They  believed  in 
justification  by  faith,  but  insisted  that  '  the  faith 
that  justifies  ought  not  to  be  idle,  but  adorned  with 
good  and  godly  deeds.'  They  admitted  the  doc- 
trine of  free  will,  and  allowed  that  men  might  fall 
from  grace  as  often  as  they  committed  deadly  sin. 
*  We  use  the  usual  ceremonial  in  the  Office  of  the 
Mass.  For  what  should  avail  a  change  of  cere- 
monies without  necessity?  But  we  admit  not 
private  masses,  because  they  occasion  sundry 
abuses ;  because  there  is  an  open  fair  or  market 
made  of  the  celebration  of  masses.'  They  pro- 
fessed their  belief  in  the  doctrine  of  the  Real 
Presence  in  the  Eucharist.  While  believing  that 
the  reception  of  '  Christ's  Body  under  both  species ' 


10        PEOPOSED  AGEEEMENT  ON  EELIGION 

was  the  right  thing,  they  charitably  refused  to 
condemn  those  who  were  content  to  receive  under 
one  species ;  '  and  there  should  be  a  prohibition 
made  that  one  should  not  offer  insults  against  the 
other.'  While  thinking  that  the  saints  should 
*  be  proposed  to  us  for  an  example  to  learn  to 
follow  their  lives  and  conversation '  without  direct 
invocation,  yet  they  do  not  condemn  invocation  of 
saints  ;  for  '  we  affirm  for  a  certainty  that  the  saints 
do  continually  intercede  for  the  Church :  albeit 
Christian  men  ought  to  be  taught  that  they  should 
not  repose  the  same  hope  in  the  saints  which  they 
ought  to  have  in  God.'  'We  do  not  reject  the 
images  of  Christ  and  of  his  saints,  but  the  adora- 
tion made  to  them ;  whereof  idolatry  is  sprung.' 
Nor  did  they  condemn  monasticism  indiscrimi- 
nately. '  We  think  it  best  to  dispute  of  Purgatory 
and  Pardons  in  the  schools,  rather  than  in  the 
pulpit  to  dispute  of  the  same  without  any  profit ; 
so  that  the  marketings  and  bargains  thereof  should 
be  avoided.  For  we  do  reject  in  those  things  and 
others,  wherein  we  do  not  agree,  the  abuse  rather 
than  the  thing  itself  :  the  which  nevertheless  may 
be  discussed  and  amended  by  Councils  lawfully 
assembled.'  f  Luther  hath  revoked  all  the  books 
wherein  there  be  many  things  contrary  to  these 
articles,  and  hath  retracted  with  his  own  hands 
and  acknowledged  his  faults.' l 

1  Strype,  Eccl.  Mem.  i.  pt.  1,  526-9.     Strype  gives  the  date  of  1529, 
which  is  is  of  course  a  slip  for  1539. 


BETWEEN  ANGLICANS  AND  LUTHEEANS     11 

The  document  is  dated  '  March  3,  1539.' 
The  Conference  led  to  no  formal  agreement 
between  the  German  and  Anglican  divines.  But 
the  failure  was  due  to  political  rather  than  to 
religious  causes.  When  the  political  horizon  was 
again  clear  Henry  renewed  his  efforts  to  bring 
about  an  agreement  on  religious  matters  between 
the  German  Lutherans  and  the  Anglican  Church. 
Froude  is  justified  by  facts  in  his  account  of  this 
episode  : — 

He  now  (A.D.  1546)  once  more,  as  if  to  signify  to  his 
own  subjects  and  to  the  world  his  resolution  to  go  for- 
ward with  the  Keformation,  offered  to  unite  with  them 
[the  Lutheran  princes  and  their  subjects]  in  a  league 
offensive  and  defensive,  to  be  called  '  the  League  Chris- 
tian.' Inasmuch  as  he  would  be  called  on  for  larger 
contributions  than  any  other  prince,  he  desired  for  him- 
self the  principal  authority;  but  his  object,  he  said, 
was  '  nothing  more  than  the  sincere  union  and  con- 
junction of  them  all  together  in  one  God,  for  Christian 
judgment  and  opinion  in  religion,  following  the  Holy 
Scriptures  or  the  determination  of  the  Primitive  Church  ' 
in  the  first  General  Councils.  He  entreated  again  that 
their  '  learned  men  '  would  come  to  England  and  settle 
with  him  their  minor  differences,  and  'so,  they  being 
united  and  knit  together  in  one  strength  and  religion,  it 
might  be  called  indeed  a  very  Christian  league  and  con- 
federacy.' At  the  same  time  he  surprised  Cranmer  by 
telling  him  that  he  was  prepared  for  the  change  at  home 
of  the  Mass  for  the  modern  Communion.  .  .  .  The 
Germans,  indeed,  were  so  blind  to  their  peril  as  again  to 
hesitate,  and  to  demand  impossible  conditions.  The  false 
promises  of  the  French  betrayed  them  to  their  ruin.  But 


12  DEATH  AEEESTED  HENEY  VIII.'S 

the  King's  intentions  remained  unaffected.  Slow  to 
resolve,  he  was  never  known  to  relinquish  a  resolution 
which  once  he  had  formed ;  and  Elizabeth  did  but 
conclude  and  establish  changes  which  her  father  would 
have  anticipated  had  another  year  of  life  been  allowed  to 
him.1 

Froude  adds  in  a  footnote :  '  I  say  Elizabeth 
rather  than  Cranmer  and  Hertford ;  for  the  Kefor- 
mation  under  Edward  VI.  was  conducted  in 
another  spirit.'  He  refers  to  a  letter  from  the 
Protector  to  Mary  in  reply  to  her  complaint  that 
the  proceedings  of  Edward  and  his  Council  were 
1  against  her  father's  will.'  '  The  Duke  in  his 
answer  told  her,'  says  Strype — 

That  her  father  died  before  he  had  fully  finished 
such  orders  as  he  was  minded  to  have  established  if 
death  had  not  prevented  him,  and  that  it  was  most  true 
that  no  kind  of  religion  was  perfected  at  his  death,  but 
that  he  left  all  uncertain.  .  .  .  But  he  [the  Duke  of 
Somerset]  and  others  could  witness  what  regret  and 
sorrow  their  late  master  had  at  the  time  of  his  departure, 
for  that  he  knew  religion  was  not  established  as  he 
purposed  to  have  done ;  and  a  great  many  knew,  and  so 
did  he,  and  could  testify,  what  that  king  would  have  done 
further  in  it  if  he  had  lived.2 

The  following  is  Strype 's  account  of  the  King's 
desire  to  turn  the  Mass  into  a  Communion  :— 

This  was  the  last  year  of  King  Henry,  and  the  two 
last  things  the  Archbishop  was  concerned  in  by  the 

1  Vol.  iv.  pp.  211-212. 
3  Eccl.  Mem,  ii.  pt.  1,  94. 


EBFOEMATION  POLICY  13 

King  were  these.  The  King  commanded  him  to  pen 
a  form  for  the  alteration  of  the  Mass  into  a  Communion. 
For  a  peace  being  conducted  between  Henry  and  the 
French  King,  while  that  king's  ambassador,  Dr.  Anne- 
bault,  was  here,  a  notable  treaty  was  in  hand  by  both 
kings  for  the  promoting  that  good  piece  of  reformation 
in  the  churches  of  both  kingdoms  of  abolishing  the 
Mass.  The  kings  seemed  to  be  firmly  resolved  thereon, 
intending  to  exhort  the  Emperor  to  do  the  same.  This 
work  our  King  committed  to  the  Archbishop,  who,  no 
question,  undertook  it  very  gladly :  but  the  death  of  the 
King  prevented  this  taking  effect.1 

The  Order  of  the  Communion  was  the  first 
instalment  of  this  undertaking  on  the  part  of 
Cranmer,  and  the  first  Prayer-Book  of  Edward 
was  the  second.  Before  Henry's  death  the  Order 
of  the  Communion  was  probably  ready  for  the 
approval  of  Convocation,  and  Edward's  first  Prayer- 
Book  was  drafted  in  the  rough. 

It  follows  indubitably  from  all  this  that  Eliza- 
beth's declaration  to  the  Spanish  ambassador,  that 
she  was  '  resolved  to  restore  religion  as  it  had  been 
left  by  her  father,'  is  in  full  harmony  with  the  facts 
and  with  her  own  character  and  feelings,  as  will 
appear  more  fully  as  we  proceed.  Her  reference  to 
the  Augustan  Confession  shows  her  thorough  know- 
ledge of  the  negotiations  that  had  taken  place 
between  the  German  divines  and  the  Anglicans, 
and  of  her  father's  attitude  on  the  subject  towards 
the  end  of  his  life.  Liturgically,  therefore,  the 

1  Memorials  of  Crcmmer,  i.  198. 


14  EEFOEMATION  POLICY 

state  of  religion  as  Henry  left  it  was  the  Order  of 
the  Communion,  which  prescribed  the  usual  cere- 
monies of  the  Mass  (minus  the  Elevation)  and  the 
draft  of  the  First  Prayer-Book.  This  I  shall  now 
endeavour  to  show. 


CHAPTEE  III 

A   GEEAT   PAET   OF   DIVINE    SERVICE   IN    ENGLISH   AT 
HENRY  VIII. 'S  DEATH 

DR.  GIBSON,  Sir  Lewis  Dibdin,  and  Mr.  Drury, 
with  the  apparent  assent  of  the  other  Commis- 
sioners, maintained  that  at  Henry  VIII.'s  death 
there  was  practically  no  liturgical  reform  at  all. 
'  They  had  the  Litany  in  English,'  said  Dr.  Gibson, 
in  his  severe  examination  of  me,  '  but  can  you  give 
me  a  single  other  thing  except  that  after  Matins 
and  Evensong  one  chapter  was  to  be  read  in 
English  in  Henry  VIII.'s  reign  ? '  'In  the  Order  of 
the  Communion  there  was  not  a  single  word  in 
English.  And  there  were  no  occasional  services 
in  English  that  I  am  aware  of.'  I  ventured  to 
suggest  '  that  the  Epistles  and  Gospels  were  read 
in  English.'  '  No,  not  until  the  Injunctions  of 
Edward  VI.,'  was  Dr.  Gibson's  magisterial  answer. 
And  Sir  Lewis  Dibdin  confidently  supported  him. 
Very  well ;  we  shall  see. 

Let  us  now  note  Dr.  Gibson's  positive  assertions 
and  compare  them  with  the  facts.  He  insisted  (1) 
that  the  Epistles  and  Gospels  were  not  read  in 
church  in  English  before  the  reign  of  Edward  VI. ; 


16       MUCH  OF  DIVINE  SEEVICE  IN  ENGLISH 

(2)  that  '  there  were  no  occasional  services '  in 
English  in  the  reign  of  Henry  VIII. ;  (3)  that  *  the 
whole  system  of  chantries  remained  unchanged  at 
the  death  of  Henry  VIII. ; '  (4)  that  the  Latin 
edition  of  the  Elizabethan  Act  of  Uniformity  was 
neither  a  contemporaneous,  nor  authorised,  nor 
legal  interpretation  of  '  the  second  year '  in  the 
Ornaments  Eubric ;  and  (5)  he  told  me  for  my 
information  :  '  You  do  not  seem  to  realise  the  extra- 
ordinary difference  there  was  between  the  last  year 
of  Henry  VIII.  and  the  first  and  second  years  of 
Edward  VI.' 

Dr.  Gibson  is  a  learned  divine.  He  has  been 
Principal  of  a  Theological  College,  and  he  had 
leisure  to  prepare  his  cross-examination  of  me,  to 
choose  his  own  points,  and  to  master  the  facts  on 
which  he  examined  me.  On  the  other  hand,  I  had 
come  up  from  Yorkshire  and  appeared  before  the 
Commission  without  the  smallest  inkling  of  the 
points  on  which  I  was  to  be  rigorously  cross- 
examined  and  challenged  to  the  proof.  I  think  it 
would  have  been  fairer  and  more  conducive  to 
historical  truth  if  some  idea  had  been  given  me 
beforehand  of  the  line  of  cross-examination  to 
which  I  was  to  be  subjected.  Taken  thus  at  a 
disadvantage,  and  feeling  assured  that  Dr.  Gibson 
would  not  have  ventured  on  such  peremptory 
assertions  without  having  made  sure  of  his  ground, 
I  yielded,  with  much  misgiving,  to  the  superior 
knowledge  which  such  confidence  implied.  I  will 


IN  HENKY  VIII.'S  REIGN  17 

deal  with  Dr.  Gibson's  points  as  they  arise  in  the 
course  of  my  argument,  and  I  begin  with  his 
assertion  that,  except  the  Litany  and  one  lesson, 
there  was  not  '  a  single  other  thing  '  in  English  in 
Henry  YIII.'s  reign.  The  truth  is  that  some  years 
before  Henry  VIII.  there  was  a  process  gradually 
going  on  of  translating  various  portions  of  the  Latin 
services  into  English.  Our  present  beautiful  Litany 
was  translated  and  in  part  composed  by  Cranmer 
in  1544.  'Erom  this  time,'  says  Canon  Dixon, 
'  until  the  liturgical  reformation  of  the  following 
reign,  no  opportunity  was  lost,  whenever  any  special 
service  was  appointed,  of  turning  some  part  of  the 
old  Latin  services  into  English ;  and  in  this  gradual 
way  the  alterations  of  the  public  services  progressed 
considerably  during  several  years.' l 

But,  in  matter  of  fact,  this  gradual  transforma- 
tion of  the  old  Latin  services  into  English  had 
been  going  on  long  before  Cranmer 's  translation 
of  the  Litany.  Let  me  quote  again  from  Canon 
Dixon  : — 

The  old  service-books  of  England,  the  mingled  product 
of  the  ecclesiastical  and  monastic  systems,  contained  (like 
those  of  the  rest  of  Christendom)  two  different  sets  of 
Offices  for  the  seven  or  eight  canonical  hours  of  prayer. 
The  one  series  was  for  public  worship  ;  the  other  was  for 
private  devotion.  Long  before  the  Eeformation  the 
private  Offices  had  been  taken  and  translated  into  English 
separately  ;  and,  under  the  peculiar  name  of  Primer,  they 
were  in  the  hands  of  the  people.  Small  manuals,  in 

1  Hist,  of  the  Church  of  England,  ii.  351-2. 


18     MUCH  OF  DIVINE  SEEVICE  IN  ENGLISH 

English,  or  partly  in  Latin,  with  this  title  still  remain  ; 
some  of  them  of  a  date  considerably  earlier  than  the 
Reformation.  These  little  books  had  come  to  be  under- 
stood to  have  certain  fixed  contents ;  and  to  include 
elementary  expositions  of  doctrine  along  with  the  prayers 
and  other  forms  of  devotion.  They  contained,  besides 
the  Offices  of  the  Hours,  the  Litany,  the  Ten  Command- 
ments, the  Ave,  and  other  Preces,  with  some  explana- 
tions. From  the  beginning  of  the  Keformation  such 
books  had  increased  greatly  in  number ;  for  in  the  Primer, 
or  private  prayer-book,  the  New  Learning  discerned  a 
means  of  disseminating  their  opinions  in  a  familiar  and 
unsuspected  form.1 

And  in  a  footnote  Canon  Dixon  says  :  4  Those 
manuals  were  used  as  reading-books  in  schools,  as 
well  as  for  ordinary  devotions.  Mr.  Dickenson  says 
that  no  less  than  thirty  Primers,  either  wholly 
English,  or  English  and  Latin  combined,  were  pub- 
lished between  1527  and  1547.' 

Several  of  the  Primers  put  forth  in  the  reign  of 
Henry  VIII.  contained  the  Epistles  and  Gospels  in 
English.  I  think  the  first  in  which  they  appear  is 
the  Primer  published  by  Bishop  Hilsey  of  Eochester 
in  1537,  and  republished  in  1539.  It  was  published 
by  authority  of  Henry  VIII.  It  had  the  Litany  in 
English  (seven  years  before  Cranmer's  translation), 
but  without  the  saints  invoked  in  previous  versions, 
except  those  found  in  the  New  Testament.  '  Other- 
wise it  is  chiefly  remarkable  for  a  calendar  giving 
Epistles  and  Gospels  for  Sundays  and  Saints'  days, 

1  Hist,  of  the  Church  of  England,  ii.  p.  360. 


IN  HENEY  VIII.'S  EEIGN  19 

which  nearly  correspond  with  those  now  in  use. 
Hilsey  may  therefore  be  regarded  as  the  first  com- 
piler of  the  present  selection  of  Epistles  and 
Gospels.' l 

In  1538  '  The  Pystels  and  Gospels  of  every 
Sunday  and  holy  day  in  the  year  '  was  printed  *  by 
Robert  Redman,  dwelling  at  the  sign  of  the  George 
next  to  Saint  Dunstan's  Church  in  Fleet  Street.' 

Another,  but  different,  copy  was  published  in 
1540,  containing  the  Collects,  Epistles,  and  Gospels 
in  English  for  the  Sundays  and  holy  days  through- 
out the  year.  And  in  the  same  year  a  Primer  was 
published  in  English  and  Latin  '  set  out  at  length 
with  the  exposition  of  Miserere  and  In  Te  Domine 
speravi,  and  with  the  Epistles  and  Gospels  through- 
out all  the  whole  year.' 

These  I  have  myself  examined.  And  I  possess 
in  addition  '  The  Epistles  and  Gospelles,  with  a  brief 
Postil  upon  the  same,'  throughout  the  year,  by 
Richard  Taverner.  It  was  '  imprinted  in  London 
by  Richard  Bankes,'  *  cum  privilegio  Regali  ad 
irnprimendum  solum,'  and  bears  the  date  of  1540. 
Immediately  after  the  table  of  contents  is 

THE  COPT  OF  THE  KTNGE'S  GBACIOUS  PRIVILEGE 

Henry  the  Eight  by  the  Grace  of  God  Kynge  of 
Englande  and  of  Fraunce,  defensour  of  the  fayth,  Lorde 
of  Ireland,  and  in  earth  supreme  head  immediately  under 
Christe  of  the  Church  of  England.  To  all  prynters  of 

1  Hist,  of  the  Chiwch  of  England,  ii.  361-2. 

o  2 


20         INCLUDING  EPISTLES  AND  GOSPELS 

bokes  wythin  thys  oure  Bealme,  and  to  all  other  our 
officers,  ministers  and  subiectes,  these  our  letters  hearyng 
or  seyinge  :  Gretynge 

We  let  you  wit,  that  of  our  grace  especial  we  have 
gyuen  priuilege  unto  our  welbeloued  subiecte  Eicharde 
Bankes,  that  no  maner  person  wythin  this  oure  Kealme, 
shal  prynte  any  maner  of  bokes,  what  so  ever  our  sayd 
subiecte  shall  prynte  fyrste  wythin  the  space  of  seuen 
years  next  ensuyng  the  printynge  of  euery  suche  boke 
so  by  hym  prynted,  vpon  payne  of  forfetynge  the  same. 
Wherefore  we  woll  and  commande  you,  that  ye  nor  none 
of  you  do  presume  to  prynte  any  of  the  sayde  bokes 
durynge  the  tyme  aforesayd,  as  ye  tender  oure  pleasure, 
and  woll  auoyde  the  contrarye. 

Taverner's  '  Postils  '  was  published,  as  already 
stated,  in  1540,  and  ran  rapidly  through  five 
editions  before  the  end  of  the  year.  It  was  under- 
taken at  the  request  of  Cromwell,  the  King's  Vice- 
gerent, and  received,  as  we  have  seen,  the  im- 
primatur  of  Henry  himself,  to  whom  Taverner  was 
Clerk  of  the  Signet.  Cardwell  republished  an 
edition  of  it  in  1841,  after  collecting  the  four  oldest 
copies  which  he  could  find.  Only  one  of  these 
copies  has  a  date,  and  that  '  in  one  only  of  its 
titles,  viz.  at  the  beginning  of  the  third  part.'  My 
copy,  which  differs  from  all  the  copies  mentioned 
by  Cardwell,  has  the  date  (1540)  twice,  namely,  on 
the  title-page  of  the  front  which  begins  with 
Corpus  Christi  day  and  goes  on  till  the  end  of  the 
Trinity  season,  and  on  the  title-page  of  the  part 
which  begins  with  '  A  Sermon  ontheKesurrection,' 
and  goes  on  till  Corpus  Christi  day. 


VAEIOUS  EXAMPLES  21 

The  Preface,  which  follows  '  The  Copy  of  the 
Kynge's  Gracious  Privilege,'  is  worth  quoting  :— 

Forasmuch  as  (good  Christen  reader)  at  this  present 
time,  accordynge  to  our  Lordes  worde,  the  haruest  is 
great  and  plenteouse,  but  the  labourers  are  fewe :  I 
meane  as  thus,  that  the  people  be  very  desirous  and 
gready  to  receyue  Gods  worde,  yf  they  had  plentie  of 
sober,  modeste,  and  sincere  teachers,  whereas  nowe  for 
skacetie  of  suche  in  some  places  they  be  destitute  and 
scattered  abrode  euen  as  shepe  lackyng  feythful  shep- 
herdes  :  I  was  instantly  required,  to  thintent  ye  Lorde  of 
the  haruest  myght  by  thys  meane  thrust  forth  his 
labourers  in  to  the  harueste,  to  peruse  and  recognize 
this  brefe  postel  which  was  delivered  me  of  certayne 
godly  persons  for  ye  purpose  and  intente.  Whiche 
thinge  to  my  lytel  power  and  as  the  shortnes  of  tyme 
wolde  serue,  I  haue  done.  And  such  sermones  or 
homylyes  as  semed  to  want,  I  haue  done.  I  haue  sup- 
plyed  partely  in  myne  owne  industrye  and  partlye  with 
the  helpe  of  other  sober  men  whych  be  better  lernyd 
then  I  my  selfe.  Now,  yf  ye  and  namely  you  pristes 
and  curates  shall  use  thys  syngular  helpe  and  benefyte, 
whych  is  here  offered  unto  you,  well  &  to  the  edificatio 
of  Christes  Churche,  ye  shal  gyve  occasio  that  other 
fruteful  workes  may  be  hereafter  at  the  comandemet  of 
the  Kynges  maiestie  or  of  his  most  honourable  counsel 
set  forth  and  published  unto  you.  But  yf,  on  the  con- 
trary part,  after  the  exemple  of  ye  unprofitable  servant 
spoke  of  y6  Gospel,  ye  wol  not  fynde  in  your  hartes 
charitably  &  prudently  to  occupye  this  talent  that  here 
is  frankely  delyuered  unto  you,  but  wyll  eyther  wrappe 
it  up  in  a  faire  napkin  or  els  unreverently  handle  it  to 
the  destruction  &  not  to  the  edification  of  others  :  be 
ye  then  sure,  that  not  only  no  mo  such  benefytes  shalbe 
bestowed  upon  you,  but  also  all  that  whyche  ye  haue 


22  VARIOUS  EXAMPLES 

already  shall  be  taken  from  you,  &  that  not  unworthyly. 
Yea    &    fynally    accordynge    to    our  Lordes  owne  sen- 
tence ye  shalbe  caste  as  seruantes  unprofitable  into  utter 
darkness,  where  shalbe  wepynge  &  gnashynge  of  teeth. 
But  there  is  good  hope  that  ye  woll  otherwyse  demene 
your  selves,  namely,  nowe  syth  ye  be  so  beningly  inuited, 
injoyned,   &    cotinually   called    upon    to    execute   your 
office   in   thys   behalfe   by   oure   hygh  shepherde   vnder 
Christ  &  supreme  heade    oure    most  dradde  soueraigne 
lorde  the  Kynges  maiestie  whom,  I  doubte  not,  but  ye 
woll  gladly  obeye.      I   meane  to  fede  more  often  your 
flocke  comytted  to  your  charge  not  with  rashe  erronyouse, 
heretical  or  fabulouse  sermons,  but  with  sobre,  discret, 
catholike  &   godly  instructions  such  as  be  here  described 
vnto  you  or  better  yf  better  ye  can  deuyse.     In  which 
thynge  doynge,ye  shall  vndoubtedly  not  onely  declare  youre 
selves  obedient  to  your  supreme  heade  Gods  minister,  but 
also  ye  shall  discharge  youre  conscience  be- 
fore God  of  the  due  ministratio  where 
vnto  ye  be  called.     To  whome 
be  given  all  prayse  & 
glory  worlde 
without 
ende 
Amen. 

Taverner's  Epistles  and  Gospels,  with  their 
Postils,  were  thus,  we  see,  published  on  the  highest 
authority,  that  of  the  King  and  his  Council,  contain- 
ing, among  others,  Cranmer  and  Gardiner.  It  is 
probable  also  that  some  of  the  leading  divines  of 
the  day  helped  Taverner  in  the  composition  of  the 
sermons.  It  is  likely  also  that  Bishop  Bonner  had 
Taverner's  book  in  his  mind  when  he  gave  the 


VAEIOUS  EXAMPLES  23 

following  directions  to  his  clergy  in  his  Injunctions 
of  1542  :- 

That  all  priests,  when  they  shall  preach,  shall  take 
the  Gospel  or  the  Epistle  of  the  day,  which  they  shall  recite 
and  declare  to  the  people  plainly,  distinctly,  and  sincerely 
from  the  beginning  to  the  end  thereof,  and  then  to  desire 
the  people  to  pray  with  him  for  grace,  after  the  usage  of 
the  Church  of  England  now  used ;  and  that  done,  we  will 
that  every  preacher  shall  declare  the  same  Gospel  or 
Epistle,  or  both,  even  from  the  beginning ;  not  after  his 
own  mind,  but  after  the  mind  of  some  Catholic  doctor, 
allowed  in  the  Church  of  England.1 

Taverner's  Postils,  annexed  to  the  Gospels  and 
Epistles  alternately,  are  excellent  in  morals  and 
doctrine,  and  were  highly  esteemed  at  the  time. 
Two  of  them  were  adopted  by  Archbishop  Parker 
and  published  by  authority  of  Queen  Elizabeth  in 
the  second  Book  of  Homilies  :  namely  the  Homilies 
for  Good  Friday  and  Easter  Day,  which  are  the 
same  as  Taverner's  sermons  on  the  Eesurrection  of 
Christ  and  upon  the  Passion. 

So  much,  then,  as  to  the  persistent  assertions 
of  Dr.  Gibson  and  Sir  Lewis  Dibdin  that  the 
Epistles  and  Gospels  were  not  read  in  divine 
service  in  English  till  they  were  authorised  by 
Edward  VI. 's  Injunctions. 

Nor  is  it  accurate  on  the  part  of  Dr.  Gibson  to 
say  that  *  in  the  Order  of  Communion  there  was 
not  a  single  word  in  English.'  The  fact  is  that 

1  Wilkins,  Cone.  iii.  866 ;  Burnet,  iv.  515,  Pocock's  edition. 


24          OCCASIONAL  SEEVICES  IN  ENGLISH 

the  Order  of  Communion  is  all  in  English.  It  is 
an  addition  to  the  Latin  Service  for  the  benefit 
of  those  who  did  not  understand  Latin,  and  to 
whom  the  Sacrament  was  now  administered  in 
both  kinds.  In  fact,  a  large  part  of  it  is  incor- 
porated in  our  present  Communion  Office,  e.g.  the 
exhortation  to  the  communicants,  the  warning  to 
evil  livers,  the  invitation  to  worthy  communicants 
to  '  draw  near,'  the  general  confession,  the  abso- 
lution, the  '  comfortable  words,'  the  prayer  of 
humble  access,  the  words  (as  in  Edward's  first 
Prayer  Book)  addressed  to  the  communicants  in 
delivering  the  Sacrament  to  them,  and  the  bene- 
diction. Indeed,  Fuller  the  historian  regarded  the 
Order  of  the  Communion  as  a  sort  of  first  edition 
of  Edward's  first  Prayer  Book,  and  covered  by  the 
first  Act  of  Uniformity. 

When  challenged  by  Dr.  Gibson  to  show  that 
a  good  part  of  the  old  services  was  in  English  in 
Henry  VIII. 's  reign,  I  said  that  '  they  had  the 
Litany  and  a  great  many  prayers  in  English.' 
*  They  had  the  Litany,'  he  said  in  his  confident 
way,  '  but  can  you  give  me  a  single  other  thing 
except  that  after  Matins  and  Evensong  one  chapter 
was  to  be  read  in  English  in  Henry's  reign ?  '  'I 
think  I  could,'  I  answered.  '  I  think  not,'  replied 
Dr.  Gibson.  Still  pressed,  I  said  that  '  a  great 
many  of  the  occasional  services '  were  in  English. 
'  There  were  no  occasional  services  in  English 
that  I  am  aware  of,'  was  the  summary  rejoinder. 


IN  HENEY  VIII.' S  REIGN  25 

I  was  surprised,  but  held  my  peace.  The  services 
of  Ordination,  Coronation,  Matrimony,  Baptism, 
Confirmation,  Burial,  are  all  *  occasional  services.' 
Dr.  Gibson  would  no  doubt  admit  this,  and  he  was 
probably  thinking  of  occasional  services  other  than 
these  when  he  declared  that  there  were  no  occa- 
sional services  in  English  in  Henry  VIII.'s  reign. 
Yet  even  so  it  is  a  somewhat  surprising  confession 
on  the  part  of  a  learned  divine  like  Dr.  Gibson. 
Several  of  the  occasional  services  in  Maskell's 
'  Monumenta  Bitualia '  were  in  English.  And 
among  the  most  popular  services  at  that  time  and 
before  that  time  were  the  Processionals,  which 
consisted  of  litanies,  suffrages,  and  prayers  for 
various  occasions :  for  rain,  for  fair  weather,  in 
times  of  war,  famine,  and  pestilence.  It  is  pos- 
sible that  some  of  these  were  partly  in  English 
long  before  the  death  of  Henry.  It  is  certain  that 
they  were  in  English  in  the  latter  years  of  his  life, 
as  the  following  letter  to  Cranmer  in  1544,  on  the 
eve  of  the  King's  departure  to  France,  will  show. 
The  letter  was  sent  by  the  Primate  to  his  Suffra- 
gans : — 

Most  Keverend  Father  in  God,  right  trusty  and  right 
well-beloved,  we  greet  you  well ;  and  let  you  wit  that, 
calling  to  our  remembrance  the  miserable  state  of  all 
Christendom,  being  at  this  present,  besides  all  other 
troubles,  so  plagued  with  most  cruel  wars,  hatreds  and 
dissensions,  as  no  place  of  the  same  almost  (being  the 
whole  reduced  to  a  very  narrow  corner)  remaineth  in 
good  peace,  agreement  and  concord ;  the  help  and  remedy 


26          OCCASIONAL  SERVICES  IN  ENGLISH 

hereof  far  exceed  the  power  of  any  man,  must  be  called 
for  of  Him  who  only  is  able  to  grant  our  petitions,  and 
never  forsaketh  or  repelleth  any  that  firmly  believe  and 
faithfully  call  upon  Him ;  unto  whom  also  the  examples 
of  Scripture  encourage  us   in   all   these  and   others  our 
troubles  and  necessities  to  fly  and  to  cry  for  aid  and  succour. 
Being  thereupon  resolved  to  have  continually  from  hence- 
forth general  processions  in  all  cities,  towns,  churches  and 
parishes  of  this  our  realm,  said  and  sung  with  such  rever- 
ence and  devotion  as  appertaineth,  forasmuch  as  heretofore 
the  people,  partly  for  lack  of  good  instruction  and  calling 
on  God,  partly  for  that  they  understand  no  part  of  such 
prayers  and  suffrages  as  were  used  to  be  said  and  sung, 
have  used  to  come  very  slackly  to  the  processions,  where 
the  same  have  been  commanded  heretofore  :  We  have  set 
forth  certain   godly  prayers  and   suffrages  in  our  native 
English  tongue,  which  we  send  you  herewith ;  signifying 
unto  you  that,  for  the  especial  trust  and  confidence  we 
have    of    your   godly  mind   and  earnest  desire    to    the 
setting  forward  of  the  glory  of  God  and  the  true  worship- 
ping  of    his  most  holy   name,    within    that    province 
committed  by  us  unto  you,  we  have  sent  unto  you  these 
suffrages,  not  to  be  for  a  month  or  two  observed  and  after 
slenderly  considered,  as  other  our  injunctions  have,  to  our 
no  little  marvel,  been  used  ;  but  to  the  intent,  as  well  the 
same  as  other  our  injunctions,  may  earnestly  be  set  forth 
by  preaching,  good  exhortations,  and  otherwise,  to   the 
people,  in  such  sort  as  they,  feeling  the  godly  taste  thereof, 
may  godly  and  joyously  with  thanks  embrace  and  frequent 
the  same  as  appertaineth. 

Wherefore  we  will  and  command  you,  as  you  will 
answer  unto  us  for  the  contrary,  not  only  to  cause  these 
prayers  and  suffrages  aforesaid  to  be  published  frequently 
and  openly  used  in  all  towns,  churches,  villages,  and 
parishes  of  your  own  diocese,  but  also  to  signify  this  our 
pleasure  unto  all  other  bishops  of  your  province,  willing 


IN  HENEY  VIII.'S  EEIGN  27 

and  commanding  them  in  our  name,  and  by  virtue  hereof, 
to  execute  the  same  accordingly.  Unto  whose  proceedings, 
in  the  execution  of  this  our  commandment,  we  will  that 
you  have  a  special  respect,  and  make  report  unto  us  if  any 
shall  not  with  good  dexterity  accomplish  the  same  ;  not 
failing,  as  our  special  trust  is  in  you. 

Given  under  our  signet  at  our  manor  of  St.  James, 
the  llth  of  June,  the  thirty-sixth  year  of  our  reign. l 

Speaking  of   the  previous  year  (1543),  Strype 

says :— 

Occasional  prayers  and  suffrages,  to  be  used  through- 
out all  churches,  began  now  to  be  more  usual  than 
formerly.  For  these  common  devotions  were  twice  this 
year  appointed  by  authority,  as  they  had  been  once  the 
last ;  which  I  look  upon  the  Archbishop  to  be  the  great 
instrument  in  procuring :  that  we  might  by  this  means, 
by  little  and  little,  bring  into  use  prayer  in  the  English 
tongue,  which  be  so  much  desired  :  and  that  the  people 
might  be  the  more  desirous  to  hear  their  whole  service 
rendered  intelligible  ;  whereby  God  might  be  served  with 
the  more  seriousness  and  true  devotion.  The  last  year 
there  was  a  plentiful  crop  upon  the  ground :  but  when 
the  time  of  harvest  drew  near  there  happened  a  great 
plague  of  rain.  So  in  August  letters  were  issued  out 
from  the  King  to  the  Archbishop,  that  he  should  appoint 
certain  prayers  to  be  used  for  the  ceasing  of  the  wet 
weather ;  and  to  write  to  the  rest  of  the  province  to  do 
the  like.2 

Strype  quotes  the  letter,  which  bears  date  '  the 
20th  day  of  August,  the  XXXV  year  of  our  reign.' 

1  Wilkins,  Cone.  iii.  868 ;  Burnet,  iv.  529,  Pocock's  edition. 

2  Mem.  i.  181.     Instead  of  'the  rest  of  the  province,'  the  original 
has  'other  the  prelates  of  this  our  realm.'     So  that  both  provinces 
were  intended,  as  probably  also  in  the  King's  previous  letter. 


28  FACTS  EEFUTE  DE.  GIBSON 

It  is  evident  from  the  King's  letter  that  these 
prayers  were  to  be  in  English,1  otherwise  supplica- 
tion could  not  have  been  made  by  '  every  person, 
both  by  himself  apart,  and  also  by  common 
prayer.' 

This  may  suffice  by  way  of  answer  to  Dr.  Gib- 
son's assertion  that  '  there  were  no  occasional 
services  in  English '  before  Henry  VIII.' s  death. 
Dr.  Gibson,  I  feel  obliged  to  say,  seemed  to  me 
anxious  in  his  cross-examination  of  me  to  press 
more  meaning  into  my  words  than  they  fairly  bear, 
for  the  purpose  of  prejudicing  my  evidence.  '  A 
great  many  things,'  I  said,  in  my  examination 
before  the  Commission,  '  had  been  abolished  under 
Henry  VIII.  and  in  the  early  years  of  Edward  VI., 
and  a  great  part  of  the  service  was  in  English.' 
Here  I  coupled  together  the  latter  part  of  Henry's 
reign  and  the  early  years  of  Edward.  But  Dr. 
Gibson  made  a  determined  effort  to  pin  me  down 
to  the  death  of  Henry  VIII.  exclusively.  Yet 
if  I  really  had  said  what  Dr.  Gibson  tried  to  make 
me  say  I  should  not  have  been  far  wrong.  In 
matter  of  fact  a  great  deal  of  divine  service  was 

1  '  Occasional  prayers,  supplications,  and  processions,  to  be  used 
in  churches,  were  not  unknown  in  olden  times ;  and  in  the  last  year 
[1543]  they  had  been  ordered  by  the  Bang  on  account  of  a  great  rain 
falling  in  harvest.  It  is  not  improbable  that  the  suffrages  used  on 
that  occasion  were  in  English  :  and  it  is  certain  that  in  this  year  [1544] 
the  King,  about  to  embark  in  person  on  his  last  expedition  against 
France,  ordered  special  prayers  to  be  had  in  the  tongue  of  the  people.' 
Dixon,  Hist.  ii.  349.  I  should  say,  for  the  reason  which  I  have 
given  above,  that  it  is  more  than  probable  that  the  suffrages  in  the 
special  services  of  1543,  as  well  as  those  in  1544,  were  in  English. 


THE  PEIMEES  EXPLAINED  <29 

in  English  at  Henry's  death.  The  Epistles  and 
Gospels  were  read  in  English,  and  two  Lessons 
from  the  Old  and  New  Testaments,  besides 
abridged  lessons  ;  and  much  of  our  present  Prayer 
Book  was  included  in  the  authorised  Primers.  Let 
us  look  at  the  last  of  them,  '  Set  forth  by  the 
King's  Majesty  and  his  Clergy  '  in  1545,  '  to  be 
taught,  learned,  and  read.' 

The  word  Primer  is  a  generic  term,  including 
a  variety  of  books  of  devotions.  We  are  here, 
however,  concerned  with  only  one  class  of  Primers, 
namely,  those  intended  both  for  private  and  public 
use,  and  these  were  generally  known  as  '  the 
Primer '  /car'  t^oxnv.  They  were  in  fact  an 
abridged  and  a  simpler  form  of  the  Breviary,  or 
Canonical  Hours,  of  which  the  usual  name  was 
'  the  Divine  Office.'  It  is  a  common,  but  errone- 
ous, belief  that  the  Breviary  was  intended  for  the 
use  of  the  clergy  only.  It  was  intended  for  the 
laity  also — at  least  those  parts  of  it  in  which  the 
laity  could  join  without  interfering  with  their 
secular  work.  Let  me  quote  on  that  point  a 
writer1  of  unquestioned  authority,  although  it  is 
really  a  matter  of  common-place  knowledge  on 
the  part  of  liturgical  students  : — 

The  laity  were  strongly  urged  to  be  present ;  but,  as 
Gavantus  complains,  they  flocked  more  readily  to  the 
Holy  Communion  than  to  the  Office  of  the  Hours.  .  .  . 
It  is  indeed  a  certain  thing  that  the  Divine  Office  was  not 

1  Maskell's  Mon.  Bit.  ii.  pp.  xxix-xxxi. 


30  THE  BREVIARY  AND  THE  LAITY 

instituted  solely  for  the  clergy,  but  for  all  men  who 
called  themselves  Christians.  Hence  were  there  so  many 
canons  of  the  Western  Church  obliging  all  parishioners 
to  attend  upon  it,  some  on  every  day,  some  on  Sundays, 
others  on  the  festivals.  Lyndwood,  for  the  English 
Church,  speaks  plainly  upon  the  point.  A  constitution 
of  Archbishop  Winchelsey  decrees  'ut  Presbyteri  infra 
nostram  provinciam  celebrantes  intersint  in  cancello  in 
Matutinis,  Vesperis,  et  aliis  Divinis  Officiis,  debitis  horis,' 
&c.  And  the  gloss  explains  '  hora  competens  '  to  be 
that  when  the  attendance  of  the  people  may  be  expected, 
though  not  always,  perhaps,  hoped  for.' 

Again  an  incidental  notice  to  the  same  effect  is 
among  the  constitutions  of  Bishop  Kirkham,  of  Durham, 
A.D.  1255 :  '  Provideant  rectores  .  .  .  ne  passim  laici 
sedeant  et  stent  in  cancello,  dum  Divina  Officia  cele- 
brantur,  nisi  forsan  patroni,  aut  alia  venerabilis  persona, 
ad  hoc  ob  reverentiam  adrnittatur.' l 

In  some  places,  indeed,  the  laity  were  more 
zealous  in  their  attendance  on  the  Divine  Office 
than  the  clergy,  as  one  of  a  body  of  canons  agreed 
upon  in  a  synod  held  at  Exeter  in  the  thirteenth 
century  shows.  Some  "of  the  clergy  shirked  their 
duty  in  a  manner  which  the  synod  did  not  hesitate 
to  characterise  as  a  fraud  on  the  Church.  They 
even  ordered,  as  a  rubric  in  our  Prayer-Book  still 
orders,  the  parish  priests  to  have  a  bell  tolled  to 
summon  the  parishioners  to  prayer;  but  lazy 
parsons  sometimes  ordered  the  bell  to  be  tolled, 
yet  never  appeared.  When  some  parishioners  as- 
sembled and,  finding  no  parson,  inquired  where  he 

1  Maskell's  Mon.  Bit.  ii.  pp.  xxix-xxxi. 


HENEY  Vm.'S  LAST  PEIMEE  31 

was,  the  bell-ringer  answered  that  the  parson  had 
come  and  gone,  there  being  no  congregation.1 
'  The  parishioners  go  away  deluded,'  says  the  synod, 
'  and  the  church  is  deprived  of  its  proper  dues.' 

Let  us  now  glance  at  King  Henry  VIII. 's  last 
Primer  (1545).  The  preface  begins  : 

Henry  the  Vlllth,  by  the  grace  of  God  King  of 
England,  France,  and  Ireland,  Defender  of  the  Faith, 
and  in  earth  Supreme  Head  of  the  Church  of  England 
and  Ireland,  to  all  and  singular  our  subjects,  as  well  of 
the  clergy  as  also  of  the  laity,  within  our  dominions 
whatsoever  they  be,  greeting. 

After  explaining  why  people  should  understand 
the  meaning  of  the  words  they  use  in  prayer,  the 
Preface  proceeds  : — 

In  consideration  whereof  we  have  set  out  and  givei? 
to  our  subjects  a  determinate  form  of  praying  in  their 
own  mother  tongue,  to  the  intent  that  such  as  are 
ignorant  of  any  strange  or  foreign  speech  may  have  what 
to  pray  in  their  own  and  acquainted  and  familiar 
language  with  fruit  and  understanding,  and  to  the  end 
that  they  shall  not  offer  unto  God  (being  the  Searcher  of 
the  reins  and  heart)  neither  things  standing  against  true 
religion  and  godliness,  nor  yet  words  far  out  of  their 
intelligence  and  understanding. 


1  'Prseterea  audivimus  quandoque,  quod  presbyteri,  quanquam 
fuerint  absentee,  tanquam  prsesentes  essent,  ad  boras  canonicas  faciunt 
campanas  pulsari :  quarum  sonitu  populus  excitatus,  dum  ad  ecclesiam 
Divinum  Officium  audiendi  et  orandi  causa  accedit,  presbyterum  non 
inveniens,  a  clerico  prsesente  ubi  sit  [inquirunt],  et  responsum 
accipiunt,  "  Non  est  hie,  jam  recessit,"  et  sic  parochiani  illusi  recedunt 
et  ecclesia  debitis  defraudatur  obsequiis.  Hanc  fraudem  evellere 
cupientes,  statuimus,  &c.'  Wilkins,  Cone.  ii.  707. 


32  HENRY  VIII.'S  LAST  PRIMEE 

And  we  have  judged  it  to  be  of  no  small  force,  for 
the  avoiding  of  strife  and  contention,  to  have  one  uni- 
form manner  or  course  of  praying  throughout  all  our 
dominions  ;  and  a  very  great  efficacy  it  hath  to  stir  up 
the  ferventness  of  the  mind  if  the  confused  manner  of 
praying  be  somewhat  holpen  with  the  fellowship  or 
annexion  of  the  understanding,  if  the  ferventness  of  the 
prayer  being  well  perceived  do  put  away  the  tediousness 
or  fainting  of  the  mind,  being  otherwise  occupied  and 
turned  from  prayer;  if  the  plenteousness  of  under- 
standing do  nourish  and  feed  the  burning  heat  of  the 
heart ;  and  finally,  if  the  cheerfulness  of  earnest  minding 
the  matter  put  clean  away  the  slothfulness  of  the  mind 
tofore  gathered.' l 

The  Primer  is  further  introduced  by  a  Eoyal 
Injunction  that  explains  in  detail  the  purpose  of 
the  king  and  clergy  in  publishing  this  Primer,  which 
is  to  supersede  all  others.  Hitherto  '  the  youth  of 
our  realms  (whose  good  education  and  virtuous 
bringing-up  redoundeth  most  highly  to  the  honour 
and  praise  of  Almighty  God)  have  been  taught  the 
elements  of  the  Christian  Faith  in  Latin,  by  means 
whereof  the  same  are  not  brought  up  in  the  know- 
ledge of  their  faith,  duty,  and  obedience,  wherein 
no  Christian  person  ought  to  be  ignorant.'  For 
the  sake  of  the  youth,  therefore,  the  Primer  ser- 
vices are  now  published  in  English.  And  not  for 
the  sake  of  the  youth  only,  but  also  '  that  our 
people  and  subjects,  which  have  no  understanding 
in  the  Latin  tongue,  and  yet  have  the  knowledge 

1  Three  Primers  of  Henry  VIII.  p.  440. 


FEOUDE  AND  DIXON  ON  THE  PEIMEK        33 

of  reading,  may  pray  in  their  vulgar  tongue,  which 
is  to  them  best  known ;  that  by  the  means  thereof 
they  should  be  the  more  provoked  to  true  devotion, 
and  the  better  set  their  hearts  upon  those  things 
that  they  pray  for.'  *  And  finally  for  the  avoiding 
of  the  diversity  of  primer  books  that  are  now 
abroad,  whereof  are  almost  innumerable  sorts, 
which  minister  occasion  of  contentious  and  vain 
disputation  rather  than  edify ;  and  to  have  one 
uniform  order  of  all  such  books  throughout  all  our 
dominions,  both  to  be  taught  unto  children  and 
also  to  be  used  for  ordinary  [i.e.  common]  prayers 
of  all  our  people  not  learned  in  the  Latin  tongue ; 
[we]  have  set  forth  this  Primer  or  Book  of  Prayers 
in  English,  to  be  frequented  and  used  in  and 
throughout  all  places  of  our  said  realms  and  do- 
minions, as  well  of  the  older  people  as  also  of  the 
youth  for  their  common  and  ordinary  prayers.' l 

Froude  describes  the  authorised  Primer  of  1545 
as  follows :  '  a  collection  of  English  prayers  was 
added  to  the  Litany,  a  service  for  morning  and 
evening,  and  for  the  burial  of  the  dead ;  and  the 
King,  in  a  general  proclamation,  directed  that  the 
Primers  should  be  used  in  all  churches  and  chapels 
in  the  place  of  the  Breviary.' 2  Dixon  girds  at 
this  passage  from  Froude,  which  he  calls  a  *  pass- 
able account  of  the  authorised  Primer,  perhaps. 
But  Mr.  Froude  goes  on  to  say  that  "  the  King  in  a 

1  Three  Primer*  of  Henry  VIII.  p.  457.       2  Fronde,  Hist.  iv.  190. 

D 


34        FBOUDE  AND  DIXON  ON  THE  PEIMEE 

general  proclamation  directed  that  they  should  be 
used  in  all  churches  and  chapels  in  the  place  of 
the  Breviary."  He  refers  to  Wilkins  iii.  873.  Per- 
haps anything  that  the  King  published  might  be 
called  a  proclamation,  but  it  would  have  been 
better  to  call  this,  as  Wilkins  does,  "  The  King's 
Preface  to  his  Primer  book."  That  is  what  it 
is.  ...  It  contains  no  mention  of  the  Breviary, 
and  no  direction  that  the  Primer,  or  private 
Prayer-Book,  should  be  read  in  churches  and 
chapels.  How  on  earth  could  it  ?  The  "  collection 
of  English  prayers  "  which  is  used  in  churches  and 
chapels  belongs  to  the  following  reign.' 

But  the  Primer  was  sanctioned  by  a  royal  In- 
junction, which  was  equivalent  to  a  proclamation. 
The  language  of  the  Injunction  precludes  the  pos- 
sibility of  our  regarding  the  Primer  as  a  mere  collec- 
tion of  *  private  prayers,'  as  Dixon  calls  it  with  the 
emphasis  of  italics.  The  King  was  not  so  foolish  as 
to  prescribe  *  one  uniform  order  '  of  private  prayers 
'  throughout  all  places  of  our  said  realms  and 
dominions.'  And  how  could  such  uniform  order 
'  be  frequented  '  by  '  all  our  people  not  learned  in 
the  Latin  tongue '  ?  The  language  evidently 
refers  to  places  of  public  worship.  And  this  is 
placed  beyond  a  doubt  by  the  services  being  called 
*  their  common  and  ordinary  prayers ' — i.e.  the 
common  and  ordinary  services  of  the  Hours  or 
Breviary,  which,  as  we  have  seen,  the  laity  as  well 
as  the  clergy  were  expected  to  attend,  especially 


FEOUDE  AND  DIXON  ON  THE  PEIMEE        35 

such  of  the  Breviary  Services  as  would  not 
interfere  with  the  ordinary  avocations  of  the 
laity.  A  glance  at  the  table  of  contents  prefixed 
to  the  Primer  of  1545  would  have  saved  Canon 
Dixon  from  his  blunder.  Here  it  is  : 

1  The  Calendar. 

c  The  King's  Highness'  Injunction. 

'  The  Prayer  of  our  Lord. 

*  The  Salutation  of  the  Angel. 

'  The  Creed  or  Articles  of  the  Faith. 
'  The  Ten  Commandments. 

'  The  Matins. 
'  The  Evensong. 

*  The  Complene. 

'  The  Seven  Psalms. 

'  The  Litany. 

'  The  Dirige. 

'  The  Commendations. 

'  The  Psalms  of  the  Passion. 

'  The  Passion  of  our  Lord. 

'  Certain  godly  prayers  for  sundry  purposes.' 

It  is  really  absurd  to  suppose  that  all  this  refers 
to  a  book  of  private  devotions.  The  authorised 
Primer  of  1545  was  to  a  large  extent  the  founda- 
tion of  the  subsequent  Book  of  Common  Prayer. 
Matins  opens  with  the  same  suffrages  in  both 
books,  followed  by  the  Gloria  and,  after  the 
Salutation  of  the  Angel  in  the  Primer,  goes  on  to 

D  2 


36        FKOUDE  AND  DIXON  ON  THE  PEIMER 

the  Venite.  Then  follow  certain  Psalms,  then  an 
anthem,  then  the  Lord's  Prayer,  then  the  follow- 
ing blessing :  '  The  everlasting  Father  bless  us 
with  his  blessing  everlasting ' ;  then  the  Lessons 
— one  from  the  Old  Testament  and  one  from  the 
New;  then  the  Te  Deum,  followed  by  versicles. 
Evensong  is  on  the  same  lines,  containing  suffrages, 
the  Gloria,  Psalms,  anthem,  a  hymn,  versicles,  the 
Magnificat,  a  second  anthem,  a  versicle,  and  a 
prayer.  The  other  services  of  the  Divine  Office 
are  all  given,  simplified  and  purged  from  a  number 
of  ceremonies  and  omitting  a  large  number  of 
Saints'  days. 

Moreover  the  following  direction  is  prefixed  to 
the  Processional : — 

As  these  holy  prayers  and  suffrages  following  are  set 
forth  of  most  godly  zeal  for  edifying  and  stirring  of 
devotion  of  all  true  faithful  hearts;  so  it  is  thought 
convenient  in  this  common  prayer  of  procession,  to  have 
it  set  forth  and  used  in  the  vulgar  tongue  for  stirring 
the  people  to  more  devotion ;  and  it  shall  be  every 
Christian  man's  part  reverently  to  use  the  same,  to  the 
honour  and  glory  of  Almighty  God  and  the  profit  of 
their  own  souls.  And  such  among  the  people  as  have 
books,  and  can  read,  may  read  them  quietly,  and  atten- 
tively give  audience  in  time  of  such  prayers,  having 
their  minds  erect  to  Almighty  God,  and  devoutly  praying 
in  their  hearts  the  same  petitions  which  do  enter  in  at 
their  ears,  so  that  with  one  sound  of  the  heart,  and  one 
accord,  God  may  be  glorified  in  his  Church.  And  it  is 
to  be  remembered  that  that  which  is  printed  in  black 
letters  is  to  be  said  or  sung  of  the  priest  with  an  audible 


FEOUDB  AND  DIXON  ON  THE  PEIMEE        37 

voice,  that  is  to  say,  so  loud  and  so  plainly  that  it  may 
well  be  understanded  of  the  hearers.  And  that  which 
is  in  the  red  is  to  be  answered  of  the  choir  soberly  and 
devoutly. 

How  in  the  face  of  all  this  Canon  Dixon  could 
have  committed  himself  to  the  extraordinary  asser- 
tion that  this  Primer  is  a  '  Private  Prayer-book,' 
containing  no  direction  that  it  '  should  be  used  in 
churches  and  chapels,'  is  amazing.  One  can  only 
suppose  that  he  never  examined  the  Primer  criti- 
cally, if  at  all.  The  whole  structure  and  woof  and 
texture  of  the  Primer  show  that  it  was  intended  to 
be  used  in  churches  and  chapels.  Of  course,  there 
are  private  devotions  in  it  as  well.  This  is  one  of 
the  few  errors  in  Canon  Dixon's  able  and  learned 
and,  on  the  whole,  accurate  history. 

And  now  let  the  reader  judge  for  himself 
between  my  statement,  that  at  the  close  of  Henry 
VIII. 's  reign  c  a  great  part  of  the  service  was  in 
English,'  and  Dr.  Gibson's  counter-assertion  *  that 
at  the  death  of  Henry  VIII.  there  was  nothing  in 
English  except  the  Litany  and  one  chapter  of  the 
Old  and  New  Testament  to  be  read  after  Matins 
and  Evensong,'  which,  in  his  opinion,  were  said  in 
Latin. 


CHAPTEE  IV 

BOOK    OF    COMMON    PEAYEE   IN    SUBSTANCE    THE  WOEK    OF 
HENEY    VIII. 'S    EEIGN 

BUT  my  evidence  as  to  the  progress  of  the 
Keformation  at  Henry  VIII. 's  death  is  not  yet 
finished. 

At  the  opening  of  Convocation  in  the  beginning 
of  Edward  VI. 's  reign  (November  7,  1547),  the 
Lower  House  sent  some  petitions  to  the  Upper 
House,  of  which  the  third  was — '  That  the  per- 
formance of  the  bishops  and  others  who,  by  order 
of  the  Convocation,  have  spent  some  time  in  review- 
ing and  correcting  the  Offices  for  Divine  Service, 
may  be  laid  before  the  House.' l  l  Here,'  says 

1  Collier,  v.  213.  Gasquet  and  Bishop  give  the  words  of  the 
petition  as  follows :  '  That  the  labours  of  the  bishops  and  others  who, 
by  command  of  Convocation,  had  been  engaged  in  examining,  revising, 
and  setting  forth  (et  edendo)  the  Divine  Service,  should  be  produced 
and  submitted  to  the  examination  of  this  House.'  Edward  VI.  and 
the  Book  of  Common  Prayer,  p.  1. 

Archbishop  Cranmer's  version  of  the  petition  says  that  the  clergy 
declared  that  'by  command  of  Henry  VIII.  certain  prelates  and 
learned  men  were  appointed  ...  to  devise  a  uniform  order;  who 
according  to  the  same  appointment  did  make  certain  books,  as  they 
[the  Lower  House]  be  informed.'  And  the  object  of  their  request  was, 
according  to  Cranmer's  statement,  that  these  books  should  be  sub- 
mitted to  them  '  for  better  expedition  of  Divine  Service  to  be  set  forth 
accordingly.'  Ibid. 


THE  PEAYER-BOOK  DEAFTED  39 

Dixon,1  '  they  referred,  it  can  scarcely  be  doubted, 
to  the  unpublished  "Kationale,"  which  Cromwell 
had  appointed  in  the  last  year  of  his  life.'  Dixon 
is  evidently  in  error  here.  The  words  of  the 
petition  do  not  correspond  with  the  contents  of 
the  '  Kationale,'  which  was  not  a  revision  and 
correction  of  the  Offices  for  Divine  Service,  but  an 
elaborate  explanation  of  the  ceremonies  and  services 
of  the  Church. 

There  is  no  record  of  the  answer  of  the  Upper 
House  to  the  petition  from  the  Lower,  nor  have  we 
any  further  account  of  the  revision  of  services — 
those  '  certain  books  '  which  Cranmer  said  had  been 
drafted  by  a  committee  of  '  certain  prelates  and 
learned  men  for  a  uniform  order.'  There  can  be 
no  doubt,  however,  that  the  Lower  House  of 
Convocation  was  accurately  informed.  But  what 
became  of  the  revised  Service-Books  to  which  they 
referred  and  which  they  wished  to  examine  '  for 
the  expedition  of  Divine  Service  to  be  set  forth '  ? 
There  can  hardly  be  a  doubt,  I  think,  that  they 
were  the  drafts  of  the  Order  of  the  Communion  and 
the  Prayer-Book  of  1549.  We  have  seen  (p.  12) 
that  in  the  last  year  of  his  life  Henry  VIII.  com- 
manded Cranmer  *  to  pen  a  form  for  the  alteration 
of  the  Mass  into  a  Communion,'  which,  according 
to  Strype,  Cranmer  '  undertook  very  gladly.' 
Henry  had  on  various  occasions  previously  ex- 
pressed his  disapproval  of  solitary  Masses  and  the 

1  Dixon's  Hist.  ii.  467. 


40  THE  PEAYER-BOOK  DRAFTED 

trafficking  in  sacred  things  thereby  engendered. 
But  the  corollary  of  '  the  alteration  of  the  Mass 
into  a  Communion '  was  the  administration  of  the 
Sacrament  to  the  laity  in  both  kinds  whenever  there 
was  a  celebration.  Accordingly  Cranmer,  a  few 
days  after  the  opening  of  Convocation  in  1547,  and 
doubtless  in  response  to  the  petition  of  the  Lower 
House  for  information  about  the  revision  of  Services 
on  which  the  authorised  committee  of  experts  had 
been  engaged,  presented  to  the  Lower  House, 
through  the  Prolocutor,  '  a  Form  of  a  certain  Or- 
dinance for  the  receiving  of  the  Body  and  Blood  of 
our  Lord  under  both  kinds  of  bread  and  also  of  wine.' 
This  was  on  November  30.  The  date  is  important, 
for  it  shows  that  the  Order  of  the  Communion  had 
been  drawn  up  before  the  accession  of  Edward  VI., 
according  to  Cranmer's  undertaking  to  Henry  VIII. 
to  compile  such  a  Form,  and  was  thus  known  to 
Parliament  while  1  Edward  VI.  was  before  it. 
On  November  12  the  Bill  against  irreverence  to 
the  Blessed  Sacrament  was  read  for  the  first  time 
in  the  House  of  Lords  ;  a  second  time  on  the 
15th ;  and  a  third  time  on  December  3.  Mean- 
while, a  Bill  for  Communion  in  both  kinds  was 
read  for  the  first  time  on  November  26.  But  before 
either  Bill  passed  through  Parliament  they  were 
combined  in  one  Bill,  and  this  became  1  Ed.  VI.  c.  1. 
as  we  have  it  now.  So  that  Parliament  had  cogni- 
sance of  the  Order  of  the  Communion  while  passing 
the  Act,  which  actually  quotes  part  of  the  document. 


IN  HENEY  VIII.'S  EEIGN  41 

Both  appeared  under  the  auspices  of  Cranmer, 
and  he  and  everybody  at  the  time  assumed  that 
the  Order  of  the  Communion  had  the  authority 
of  Parliament,  which  merely  authorised  what  Cran- 
mer had  prepared  in  obedience  to  Henry  VIII. 's 
command. 

But  the  Lower  House  demanded  to  see  '  certain 
books,  the  labours  of  the  Bishops  and  others  who, 
by  command  of  Convocation,  had  been  engaged  in 
examining,  revising,  and  setting  forth  the  Divine 
Service.'  The  Order  of  the  Communion  alone 
does  not  satisfy  this  description.  There  must  have 
been  another  book.  What  was  it  ?  The  credit  of 
answering  that  question  belongs  to  two  learned 
Eoman  Catholic  writers,  Dom  Gasquet  and  Mr. 
Bishop.1  They  discovered  some  years  ago  the 
draft  of  the  Prayer-Book  of  1549  in  Cranmer's 
handwriting.  There  are  three  copies  of  this  draft, 
and  'the  document,'  they  think,  'is  to  be  assigned 
to  some  date  between  1543  and  Henry's  death 
in  1547.'  It  is  in  Latin  because  Cranmer  had 
Quignon's  revised  Latin  Breviary  before  him  and 
borrowed  freely  from  it.  But  it  is  evident  that  the 
Book  when  complete  was  intended  to  be  in  English. 
In  fact,  the  Preface  to  our  present  Prayer-Book 
is,  for  the  most  part,  a  literal  translation  from 
Cranmer's  Latin  draft. 

The  truth  is  that  the  main  lines  of  our  Book  of 

1  See  Edward  VI.  and  the  Boole  of  Common  Prayer.    By  Francis 
Aidan  Gasquet,  O.S.B.,  and  Edmund  Bishop. 


42  THIS  WAS  THE  EESULT 

Common  Prayer  were  laid  down  before  the  death 
of  Henry  VIII.,  and  the  Book  of  1549  was  but  the 
filling  in  of  the  outline.  The  common  impression 
is  that  soon  after  Edward  YI.'s  accession  to  the 
throne  he  commissioned  a  select  body  of  divines  to 
draw  up  for  the  first  time  a  '  Book  of  Common 
Prayer  and  Administration  of  the  Sacraments  and 
other  Kites  and  Ceremonies  according  to  the  use 
of  the  Church  of  England,'  and  that  this  body 
accomplished  their  task  in  a  few  months,  and 
produced  at  a  single  effort  the  first  Prayer-Book  of 
Edward  VI.  The  fact  is  very  different.  Edward's 
Book  was  the  result  of  a  long  process  extending  by 
a  series  of  experiments  over  a  series  of  years,  in 
which  both  the  Church  and  the  State,  in  varying 
degrees,  took  part.  The  process  began  in  the  year 
1516  when  the  most  authoritative  and  popular  of 
the  old  English  Service-Books,  the  Sarum  Breviary, 
underwent  a  sweeping  reform,  including  a  provision 
for  an  increased  use  of  Holy  Scripture.  The  Sarum 
Missal  underwent  a  similar  reform  two  years  later. 
In  the  year  1534  the  Convocation  of  Canterbury 
petitioned  Henry  VIII.  to  authorise  an  English 
version  of  the  Bible.  The  King  refused ;  but  the 
petition  bore  fruit  not  long  after.  Archdeacon 
Freeman  calls  attention  to  the  remarkable  fact 
that, — 

Coincidently  with  this  petition  [of  1534]  the  issue  of 
printed  editions  of  the  principal  Service-Books,  of  whatever 
'  Use,'  which  since  the  end  of  the  fifteenth  century  had 


OF  A  LONG  PEOCESS  43 

continued  without  interruption,  suddenly  ceased ;  and  in 
the  case  of  the  Missal  was  never  resumed  up  to  the 
time  of  the  first  Kevision  of  the  Offices  in  1549.  This 
coincidence  is  too  remarkable  to  have  been  the  result  of 
accident.  It  indicates,  not  obscurely,  a  design  or  desire 
on  the  part  of  Convocation  to  popularise  the  ancient  Offices 
and  adapt  them  to  congregational  use  (at  least  to  the 
extent  of  having  the  portion  of  Scripture  contained  in  them 
read  in  the  vernacular)  before  putting  them  forth  again. 
It  would  be  natural,  under  the  influence  of  such  a  hope,  to 
suspend  the  issuing  of  the  Service-Books  in  their  older 
form.1 

I  have  already  shown  how  this  design  was 
carried  out  in  the  various  amended  editions  of  the 
Primers,  with  the  Epistles  and  Gospels  in  English 
sometimes  attached  to  the  Primers,  and  sometimes, 
as  in  Taverner's  edition,  printed  separately.  Even 
where  the  Epistle  and  Gospel  were  still  read  in 
Latin  they  were  also  read  in  English,  as  Bonner's 
Injunctions  show.2  The  difference  which  Edward's 
Injunctions  made  in  this  respect  was  that  the 
Epistle  and  Gospel  were  now  ordered  '  to  be  read 
at  High  Mass  in  English,  and  not  in  Latin.' 

In  1541  Cranmer  moved  in  Convocation  c  that 
the  Missals  and  other  Liturgic  Books  might  be 
reformed,  omitting  [with  other  things]  the  names 
of  the  Popes.'  Soon  afterwards  an  amended  edition 
of  the  Sarum  Breviary  was  put  forth  with  the 

1  Principles  of  Divine  Service,  ii.  104. 

2  I  have  sometimes  seen  this  done  abroad  at  the  present  day, 
e.g.  in  Bamberg. 


44  STATUTOEY  POWERS  OF  PICKED 

proposed  omissions,  and  the  Sarum  Use  was  now 
made  obligatory. 

This  was  obviously  intended  to  pave  the  way  for 
further  reforms,  and  accordingly  in  the  following 
year  a  Committee  of  both  Houses  of  Convocation 
was  appointed  by  desire  of  the  King  in  order  *  that 
all  Mass-books,  Antiphoners,  Portuases  [shortened 
Breviaries]  in  the  Church  of  England  should  be 
newly  examined,  corrected,  reformed.' *  The  Com- 
mittee consisted  of  the  Bishops  of  Sarum  (Shaxton) 
and  Ely  (Goodrick),  and  six  members  of  the  Lower 
House.  Freeman  says  of  this  Committee  : — 

Having  been  in  the  first  instance  appointed  by 
Convocation,  at  the  desire  of  the  Crown,  it  would  seem 
to  have  been  considered  henceforth  as  a  standing 
institution,  and  as  the  common  property,  in  some  sort, 
of  the  spiritual  and  temporal  authorities ;  or  rather 
as  an  instrument  in  the  hands  of  both,  which  each  made 
use  of,  with  the  tacit  concurrence  of  the  other,  for  carrying 
out  the  purpose  originally  contemplated  in  its  appoint- 
ment.2 

About  the  same  time  an  Act  of  Parliament  was 
passed  giving  statutory  authority  to  a  larger  Com- 
mittee, probably  embracing  and  superintending  the 
smaller  Committee  appointed  by  Convocation,  with 
very  large  powers  of  revision  and  reformation. 
Historians  have  strangely  overlooked  this  most 
important  Committee,  which  throws  a  clear  light 

1  Wilkins,  Cone.  iii.  863. 

*  Principles  of  Divine  Service,  ii.  108. 


COMMITTEES  OF  DIVINES  45 

on  some  otherwise  obscure  points  in  the  eccle- 
siastical legislation  of  Edward  VI.  and  Elizabeth, 
as  we  shall  see  later  on.  The  part  of  this  statute 
which  concerns  us  at  present  is  the  following  : — 

Whereas  the  King's  Majesty  .  .  .  hath  appointed 
.  .  .  the  archbishops  and  sundry  bishops  of  both  provinces 
.  .  .  and  also  a  great  number  of  the  most  learned  honest- 
est  and  most  virtuous  sort  of  the  Doctors  of  Divinity  men 
of  discretion  judgment  and  good  disposition  of  the  realm, 
to  the  intent  that  .  .  .  they  should  declare  by  writing  and 
publish  as  well  the  principal  articles  and  points  of  our 
faith  and  belief  with  the  declaration  true  understanding 
and  observation  of  all  other  such  expedient  points  as  by 
them,  with  his  Grace's  advice  counsel  and  consent,  shall  be 
thought  needful  and  expedient,  and  also  for  the  lawful  rites 
ceremonies  and  observations  of  God's  service  within  his 
Grace's  realm.  ...  BE  IT  THEEEFOEE  ENACTED  .  .  .  that 
all  and  every  determinations  declarations  decrees  definitions 
resolutions  and  ordinances,  as,  according  to  God's  Word 
and  Christ's  Gospel,  by  his  Majesty's  advice  and  confirm- 
ation by  his  letters  patent,  shall  at  any  time  hereafter  be 
made  set  forth  declared  defined  resolved  and  ordained  by 
the  said  archbishops  bishops  and  doctors  now  appointed, 
or  by  other  persons  hereafter  to  be  appointed  by  his  Majesty 
or  else  by  the  whole  clergy  of  England,  in  or  upon  the 
matters  of  Christ's  religion  and  Christian  faith  and  the 
lawful  rites  ceremonies  and  observations  of  the  same, 
shall  be  in  all  and  every  point  limitation  and  circumstance 
thereof,  by  all  his  Grace's  subjects  and  other  residents  and 
inhabitants  within  the  realm  .  .  .  fully  believed  obeyed 
observed  and  performed  ...  as  if  the  said  determinations, 
declarations  .  .  .  had  been  by  express  words  terms  and 
sentences  plainly  set  out  and  contained  in  the  present  Act. 
Provided  that  nothing  be  done  ordained  ...  by  authority 


46  STATUTOBY  POWEES  OF  PICKED 

of  this  Act  which  shall  be  repugnant  or  contrariant  to  the 
laws  and  statutes  of  this  realm.1 

Unless  this  statute  was  repealed,  as  has  been 
contended,  by  1  Edw.  VI.  c.  12  (of  which  more  anon), 
it  is  plain  that  it  gave  statutory  force  to  the  acts 
and  regulations  of  authorised  picked  committees  of 
divines  down  to  the  first  Act  of  Uniformity,  which 
—  without  formally  repealing  —  practically  sus- 
pended 32  Hen.  VIII.  c.  26.  Certainly  that  was 
the  constitutional  doctrine  of  that  time.  For 
instance,  the  Catechism  of  1552-3  claimed  Synodal 
authority.  When  it  came  up  for  debate  in  Con- 
vocation on  October  18,  1553,  Dr.  Weston,  Pro- 
locutor of  Convocation  in  the  first  year  of  Mary, 
objected  '  that  the  said  Catechism  was  not  set 
forth  by  agreement  of  that  House.'  To  this  objec- 
tion Philpot,  Archdeacon  of  Winchester,  answered 
that 

The  said  House  had  granted  the  authority  to  make 
ecclesiastical  laws  unto  certain  persons  to  be  appointed 
by  the  King's  Majesty,  and  therefore  whatsoever  eccle- 
siastical laws  they  or  the  most  part  of  them  did  set  forth 
(according  to  the  statutes  in  that  behalf  provided) 2  might 
be  well  said  to  be  done  in  the  Synod  in  London.3 

We  now  see  what  the  Lower  House  of  Convo- 
cation meant  in  their  petition  to  the  Upper  House 

1  82  Henry  VIII.  c.   xxvi.   (Statutes  of  the  Bealm,  printed  by 
command,  from  Original  Records  and  Authentic  MSS.  1817,  iii.  783). 

2  The  reference  is  probably  to  25  Hen.  VIII.  c.  19,  and  32  Hen. 
VIII.  c.  26. 

3  Heylin,  Hist,  of  Bef.  i.  258. 


COMMITTEES  OP  DIVINES  47 

in  November,  1547,  requesting  to  be  allowed  to  see 
and  examine  the  '  books '  compiled  by  the  Com- 
mittee of  '  certain  Prelates  and  learned  men ' 
'  appointed  by  Henry  VIII.  to  devise '  '  a  uniform 
order.'  I  have  no  doubt  that  they  meant  '  the 
Order  of  the  Communion,'  and  the  draft  of  the 
Prayer-Book  of  1549,  both  of  which  were  com- 
posed under  the  aegis  of  the  Committee  to  which 
32  Hen.  VIII.  c.  26  gave  statutory  power.1 

1  No  question  arises  here  as  to  the  repeal  of  32  Hen.  VIII.  c.  26 
by  1  Edw.  VI.  c.  12,  for  the  latter  was  subsequent  to  the  petition  of 
the  Lower  House. 


CHAPTEE   V 

MAIN   LINES    OF    THE    REFORMATION    LAID   IN 
HENRY   VIII. 'S   REIGN 

IT  is  a  prevalent  impression,  and  was  evidently 
the  impression  of  most  of  my  cross-examiners  on 
the  Eoyal  Commission  on  Ecclesiastical  Disci- 
pline, that  the  Beformation  of  the  Church  in 
England  really  began  in  the  reign  of  Edward  VI., 
the  Reformation  under  Henry  VIII.  consisting 
only  of  the  abolition  of  Papal  Supremacy  and  its 
direct  offshoots.  That  is  the  position  taken  up 
by  Bossuet,1  who  has  been  slavishly  followed  by 
English  Churchmen  who  ought  to  know  better. 
It  was  a  natural  position  for  a  Eoman  Catholic 
controversialist,  offering  a  great  polemical  advan- 
tage. But  it  is  a  ruinous  position  for  an  Anglican, 
for  it  conceals  the  fact  that  the  Eeformation  was 
a  revolt  of  the  whole  English  nation — of  the 
Church  quite  as  much  as  of  the  State — against 
Papal  usurpations  in  Church  and  State  and  cor- 
ruptions in  religion.  In  fact,  the  Church  took  the 
lead.  It  was  the  Convocation  of  the  clergy  that 

1  Histoire    det    Variations    des    £gliaes    Protestantes,    liv.    vii. 
s.  24-28. 


EKEONEOUS  VIEWS  OF  THE  REFORMATION  49 

moved  the  King  and  Parliament  to  abolish  annates, 
and  recommended  that  in  the  event  of  the  Pope 
retaliating  by  interdict  or  any  other  of  the  coercive 
weapons  in  the  armoury  of  the  Court  of  Kome,  the 
English  nation  should  repudiate  his  jurisdiction 
altogether.  There  is  so  much  ignorance  and 
misapprehension  on  this  subject  that  it  is  worth 
while  to  quote  at  length  the  Petition  of  Convoca- 
tion : — 

Whereas  the  Court  of  Rome  hath  a  long  season 
exacted  of  such  as  have  been  named  or  elected  to  be 
archbishops  or  bishops  of  this  realm  the  annates — that 
is  to  say,  the  first  fruits  of  their  bishoprics — before  they 
could  obtain  their  bulls  out  of  the  said  Court ;  by  reason 
whereof  the  treasure  of  this  realm  hath  been  had  and 
conveyed  to  Eome,  to  no  small  decay  of  this  land,  and  to 
the  great  impoverishing  of  bishops ;  while,  if  they  should 
die  within  two  or  three  years  after  their  promotion, 
should  die  in  such  debt  as  should  be  the  undoing  of  their 
friends  and  creditors ;  and  by  the  same  exaction  of 
annates  bishops  have  been  so  extenuate  that  they  have 
not  been  able  in  a  great  part  of  their  lives  to  repair  their 
churches,  houses,  and  manors ;  which  by  reason  thereof 
have  fallen  into  much  decay:  and  besides,  tjaat  the 
bishops  have  not  been  able  to  bestow  the  goods  of  the 
Church  in  hospitality  and  alms,  and  other  deeds  of 
charity  which,  by  the  law  and  by  the  minds  of  the 
donors  of  their  possessions  temporal,  they  were  bound 
to  do. 

In  consideration  whereof,  forasmuch  as  it  is  to  be 
accounted  as  simony  by  the  Pope's  own  law  to  take  or 
give  any  money  for  the  collation,  or  for  the  consenting 
to  the  collation  of  a  bishopric,  or  of  any  other  spiritual 

E 


50  THE  CHUECH  TOOK  THE  LEAD 

promotion :  and  to  say  that  the  said  annates  be  taken 
for  the  vacation,  as  touching  the  temporalities,  per- 
taineth  of  right  to  the  King's  Grace ;  and  as  touching 
the  spirituality  to  the  Archbishop  of  Canterbury :  and  it 
is  not  to  be  allowed,  if  it  should  be  alleged,  that  the  said 
Court  exacteth  these  annates  for  parchments  and  lead, 
and  writing  of  the  bulls.  For  so  should  parchment  and 
lead  be  very  dear  merchandise  at  Home,  and  in  some 
cases  an  hundred  times  more  worth  than  the  weight  or 
counterpoise  of  fine  gold. 

In  consideration  also  that  it  is  no  reason  that  the  first 
fruits  of  such  temporal  lands  as  the  King's  most  noble 
progenitors  and  other  noblemen  of  this  realm  have  given 
to  the  Church  of  England,  upon  high  respects,  causes, 
and  conditions,  should  be  applied  to  the  Court  of 
Borne  :  which  continually  getteth  by  this  means,  and 
many  other,  much  goods  and  profits  out  of  this  realm, 
and  never  departeth  with  any  portion  thereof  hither 
again.  For  touching  the  same  temporal  lands,  the 
bishops  be  subject  only  to  the  King's  Grace,  and  not 
to  the  Court  of  Eome  :  neither  by  reason  of  those  pos- 
sessions ought  to  pay  these  annates  as  a  tribute  to  the 
said  Court.  Wherefore  if  there  were  just  cause,  as  there 
is  none,  why  any  sums  of  money,  besides  the  competent 
charges  of  the  writing  and  sealing,  should  be  demanded 
for  bishops'  bulls,  the  Court  of  Kome  might  be  con- 
tented with  the  annates  of  the  spiritualities  alone, 
without  exaction  of  the  first  fruits  of  the  temporalities ; 
in  which  they  have  none  interest,  right,  or  superiority. 

And  further,  in  consideration  that  the  bishops  be 
sworn  at  their  consecration,  that  they  shall  not  alienate 
the  immovable  or  precious  movable  goods  of  their 
bishopric  :  seeing  the  payment  of  these  annates  be  an 
alienation  of  the  first  fruits,  being  precious  movables ; 
by  the  alienation  whereof  the  bishop  should  fall  into 
perjury ; 


IN  EEPUDIATING  PAPAL  SUPKEMACY        51 

(After  quoting  the  Council  of  Basle  in  support 
of  their  complaint  against  the  extortions  of  the 
Court  of  Rome)  : — 

It  may  please  the  King's  most  noble  Grace,  having 
tender  compassion  to  the  wealth  of  this  his  realm,  which 
has  been  so  greatly  extenuate  and  hindered  by  the  pay- 
ments of  the  said  annates,  and  by  other  exactions  and 
slights,  by  which  the  treasure  of  this  land  hath  been 
carried  and  conveyed  beyond  the  mountains  to  the  Court 
of  Rome,  that  the  subjects  of  this  realm  be  brought  to 
great  penury,  and  by  necessity  be  forced  to  make  their 
most  humble  complaint  for  stopping  and  restraining  the 
said  annates  and  other  exactions  and  expilations,  taken  for 
indulgences  and  dispensations,  legacies,  and  delegacies, 
and  other  feats,  which  were  too  long  to  remember : 

First,  to  cause  the  said  unjust  exactions  of  annates 
to  cease  and  to  be  foredone  for  ever  by  this  act  of  his 
Grace's  High  Court  of  Parliament.  And  in  case  the 
Pope  would  make  any  process  against  this  realm  for  the 
attaining  of  these  annates,  or  else  would  retain  bishops' 
bulls  till  the  annates  be  paid,  forasmuch  as  the  exaction 
of  the  said  annates  is  against  the  law  of  God  and  the 
Pope's  own  laws,  forbidding  the  buying  or  selling  of 
spiritual  gifts  or  promotions  ;  and  forasmuch  as  all  good 
Christian  men  be  more  bound  to  obey  God  than  man ; 
and  forasmuch  as  St.  Paul  willeth  us  to  withdraw 
ourselves  from  all  such  as  walk  inordinately ;  it  may 
please  the  King's  most  noble  Grace  to  ordain  in  this 
present  Parliament,  that  the  obedience  of  him  and  the 
people  be  withdrawn  from  the  See  of  Rome  :  as  in  like 
case  the  French  King  withdrew  his  obedience  from  Pope 
Benedict  the  XIII.  of  that  name;  and  arrested  by 
authority  of  his  Parliament  all  such  annates,  as  it 
appeareth  by  good  writing  ready  to  be  shewed.1 

1  British  Museum,  MS.  Cleop.  E.  6,  p.  263. 


52      THE  CHUECH  TOOK  THE  LEAD 

This  petition  of  Convocation  bore  fruit  the 
following  year  in  the  Act  restraining  annates 
(23  Hen.  VIII.  c.  20).  The  Act  provided  that  if 
the  existing  Pope,  or  any  of  his  successors,  should 
still  attempt  to  exact  annates  by  means  of  *  ex- 
communication, excommengement,  interdiction,  or 
by  any  other  process,  censures,  compulsories,  ways 
or  means,'  then — 

Be  it  enacted  by  the  authority  aforesaid  that  the 
King's  Highness,  his  heirs  and  successors,  Kings  of 
England,  and  all  his  spiritual  and  lay  subjects  of  the 
same,  without  any  scruples  of  conscience,  shall  and  may 
lawfully,  to  the  honour  of  Almighty  God,  the  increase 
and  continuance  of  virtue  and  good  examples  within  this 
realm,  the  said  censures,  excommunications,  interdic- 
tions, compulsories,  or  any  of  them  notwithstanding, 
minister,  or  cause  to  be  ministered,  throughout  this  said 
realm,  and  all  other  the  dominions  or  territories  belonging 
or  appertaining  thereto,  and  all  manner  of  sacraments, 
sacramentals,  ceremonies,  or  other  divine  service  of  Holy 
Church,  or  any  other  thing  or  things  necessary  for  the 
health  of  the  soul  of  mankind,  as  they  heretofore  at  any 
time  or  times  have  been  virtuously  used  or  accustomed 
to  do  the  same ;  and  that  no  manner  such  censures, 
excommunications,  interdictions,  or  any  other  process  or 
compulsories,  shall  be  by  any  of  the  prelates,  or  other 
spiritual  fathers  of  this  region,  nor  by  any  of  their 
ministers  or  substitutes,  be  at  any  time  or  times  here- 
after published,  executed,  nor  divulged,  nor  suffer  to  be 
published,  executed,  or  divulged  in  any  manner  of  wise. 

Let  it  be  remembered  that  it  was  the  clergy 
who  took  the  initiative  in  this  comprehensive 
repudiation  of  the  Pope's  jurisdiction  in  England. 


IN  EEPUDIATING  PAPAL  SUPEEMACY        53 

But  so  far  it  was  mainly  a  repudiation  of  the 
secular  side  of  Papal  supremacy.  The  Pope's 
judicial  authority  in  England  was  abolished ; 
appeals  to  Eome  were  forbidden ;  the  Pope's 
usurped  rights  of  patronage  were  done  away ; 
contributions  to  the  Papal  treasury  ceased ;  and 
the  Pope's  claim  to  grant  dispensations  to  British 
subjects  was  disallowed.  But  we  are  thus  far,  for 
the  most  part,  in  the  domain  of  the  temporal 
attributes  claimed  by  the  Papacy.  The  spiritual 
claims  of  the  Pope  were  not  yet  assailed,  or  only 
indirectly,  as  in  the  assertion  of  the  right  of  the 
English  clergy  to  administer  the  Sacraments  and 
discharge  all  other  religious  offices  in  spite  of  Papal 
excommunications  and  interdicts.  But  in  1534 
the  attack  was  carried  into  the  spiritual  domain. 
The  claims  of  the  Papacy  in  their  theological 
aspect  were  submitted  to  the  consideration  of  the 
Universities  of  Oxford  and  Cambridge,  and  were 
decided  in  the  negative.  On  March  31,  1534,  the 
Convocation  of  Canterbury,  and  on  the  5th  of  the 
following  May  the  Convocation  of  York,  declared 
'  that  the  Bishop  of  Eome  has  no  greater  jurisdic- 
tion conferred  on  him  by  God,  in  this  Kingdom  of 
England,  than  any  other  foreign  bishop.'1  This 
declaration  was  signed  not  only  by  the  bishops, 
but  also  by  the  superior  clergy  in  the  monasteries 
and  by  the  Cathedral  chapters  as  well  as  by  the 

1  Eymer,  xiv.  487-527;   Wilkins,  iii.   769;    Collier's  Eccl  Hist. 
ir.  263. 


54  THE  CHUECH  TOOK  THE   LEAD 

two  Universities.  The  aged  Bishop  of  Chichester, 
Dr.  Sherborne,  wrote  that  he  had  himself  preached 
in  support  of  the  declaration  of  the  two  Convoca- 
tions, and  had  commissioned  his  suffragan  to  do 
the  same  ;  and  he  added  that  '  there  is  neither 
abbot,  prior,  dean,  archdeacon,  priest,  parson,  vicar, 
nor  curate  within  my  diocese  but  they  have  com- 
mandment to  publish  the  same  in  their  churches 
every  Sunday  and  solemn  feast  accordingly.' 

The  next  move  in  the  direction  of  reformation 
in  1536  was  a  series  of  *  Articles  on  Eeligion,  set 
out  by  the  Convocation,  and  published  by  the 
King's  Authority.'  This  is  the  title  in  the  Cotton 
MS.  In  Berthelot's  it  runs,  '  Articles  devised  by 
the  Kinges  Highn.  Majestie  to  stably  she  Christen 
quietnes  and  unitie  amonge  us,  and  to  avoyde 
contentious  opinions  :  which  Articles  be  also  ap- 
proved by  the  consent  and  determination  of  the 
hole  Clergie  of  this  Eealme,  Anno  MDXXXVI.' 
There  is  no  substantial  difference  between  the  two 
editions. 

These  '  Articles  about  Eeligion '  were  followed 
in  the  ensuing  year  by  '  The  Institution  of  a 
Christian  Man,'  which  is  an  explanation,  covering 
some  two  hundred  pages  octavo,  of  the  doctrines 
of  the  Church.  In  1543,  and  again  in  1545,  an 
edition  of  the  '  Institution  '  was  published,  in  a 
slightly  varied  form,  under  the  title  of  '  A  Neces- 
sary Doctrine  and  Erudition  for  any  Christian  Man, 
Set  forth  by  the  King's  Majesty  of  England,  &c.' 


IN  EEPUDIATING  PAPAL  SUPEEMACY        55 

Now  let  us  see  what  these  formularies,  which 
came  out  on  the  authority  of  both  Church  and 
State,  teach.  They  condemn  kneeling,  and  bow- 
ing, and  offering  to  images  ;  and  all  worship  before 
them  was  to  be  directed  not  to  the  image  itself, 
nor  to  the  saint  represented,  but  to  God  only.  In- 
dulgences were  rejected,  and  while  prayers  for  the 
departed  are  defended,  the  mediaeval  doctrine  of 
purgatory  was  condemned  in  the  following  words  : 

Finally,  it  is  much  necessary  that  all  such  abuses  as 
heretofore  have  been  brought  in  by  supporters  and  main- 
tamers  of  the  Papacy  of  Eome  and  their  accomplices 
concerning  this  matter  be  clearly  put  away ;  and  that  we 
therefore  abstain  from  the  name  of  purgatory,  and  no 
more  dispute  or  reason  thereof:  under  colour  of  which 
have  been  advanced  many  fond  and  great  abuses,  to 
make  men  believe  that  through  the  Bishop  of  Eome's 
pardons  souls  might  clearly  be  delivered  out  of  it,  and 
released  out  of  the  bondage  of  sin  ;  and  that  masses  said 
at  Scala  Coeli,1  and  other  prescribed  places,  phantasied  by 

1  There  seems  to  be  a  confusion  here  between  Scala  Santa  and 
Ara  Coeli.  The  iformer  is  evidently  intended.  The  Scala  Santa  is  a 
flight  of  stairs,  consisting  of  twenty-eight  marble  steps,  under  a  portico 
on  the  north  side  of  the  Lateran  Basilica,  in  Rome.  Tradition  says 
that  the  steps  belonged  to  Pilate's  house,  and  had  been  the  very  steps 
by  which  our  Saviour  descended  when  He  left  the  judgment  seat. 
An  extraordinary  sanctity  is  thus  ascribed  to  them,  and  they  are  only 
allowed  to  be  ascended  by  penitents  on  their  knees ;  so  that  it  was 
necessary  to  protect  them  by  planks  of  wood  from  being  worn  away. 
The  church  of  Santa  Maria  di  Ara  Cceli  stands  at  the  top  of  broad 
stairs,  consisting  of  124  marble  steps  taken  from  the  ruins  of  the 
temple  of  Quirinus ;  but  no  special  sanctity  attaches  to  these  steps. 
The  church  itself  is  held  in  great  veneration  by  reason  of  the 
1  Santissimo  Bambino '  which  it  holds,  and  which  is  reputed  to  work 
miracles  of  healing.  It  was  in  the  church  of  Ara  Coeli  that  Gibbon 
as  he  tells  us,  sat  musing  '  among  the  ruins  of  the  Capitol,'  and  was 


56          NO  NEW  FOEMULAEY   OF  DOCTEINE 

men,  did  there  in  those  places  more  profit  the  souls  than 
in  another ;  and  also  that  a  prescribed  number  of  prayers 
sooner  than  other  (though  as  devoutly  said)  should 
further  their  petition  sooner,  yea  specially  if  they  were 
said  before  one  image  more  than  another  which  they 
phantasied.  All  these  and  such  like  abuses  be  neces- 
sary utterly  to  be  abolished  and  extinguished.1 

'It  is  a  fact,'  observes  Palmer,  with  strict 
accuracy,  '  that  no  new  formulary  of  doctrine  what- 
ever [the  italics  are  his]  was  published  by  the 
Church  during  the  whole  reign  of  Edward  VI.' 
The  forty-two  Articles  of  religion  never  received 
any  ecclesiastical  authority,  and  they  passed  away 
still-born.  And  thus,  as  Palmer  says,  '  it  seems 
plain  that  during  the  whole  reign  of  Edward  VI. 
the  doctrine  of  the  Church  of  England  was  most 
authentically  represented  by  the  formulary  of 
instruction  formally  approved  by  Convocation  in 
the  reign  of  Henry  VIII.,  A.D.  1545,  entitled  "  The 
Necessary  Doctrine  and  Erudition  for  any  Christian 
Man."  ' 2 

And  now  I  respectfully  submit  that  I  was  more 
than  justified  by  all  the  evidence  in  maintaining 
before  the  Eoyal  Commission  that  Queen  Elizabeth 
was  perfectly  sincere  and  serious  in  telling  the 
Spanish  ambassador  on  her  accession  that  she  was 

suddenly  inspired  with  the  idea  of  writing  the  Decline  and  Fall  of  the 
Roman  Empire. 

1  See  Formularies  of  Faith,  pp.  134,  135,  137,  211,  285,  286,  300, 
305. 

2  Trentist  on  th«  Church  of  Christ,  i.  508,  509. 


ISSUED  IN  EDWAED  VI.'S  EEIGN  57 

resolved  '  to  restore  religion  as  it  was  left  by  her 
father.'  When  Mary  was  dying  she  agreed  to 
declare  Elizabeth  her  successor,  but  strongly  urged 
that  she  should  maintain  the  Catholic  religion  as 
Mary  had  restored  it.  Doubtless  Elizabeth  had 
this  request  in  her  mind  when  she  declared  her 
intention  to  go  back  behind  Mary  and  Edward  to 
the  stage  which  the  Eeformation  had  reached  at 
her  father's  death.  She  was  not  able  to  realise 
her  intention  to  the  letter :  circumstances  were 
too  strong  for  her.  Nevertheless  the  formularies 
of  the  later  years  of  Henry  and  of  the  reign  of 
Elizabeth  '  are  not  so  worded  as  to  evince  any 
great  or  irreconcilable  opposition  between  the 
public  and  authorised  faith  of  the  Church  of 
England  in  the  reign  of  Henry  VIII.  and  in  that 
of  Elizabeth.'1 

1  Palmer's  Treatise  on  the  Church  of  Christ,  i.  526.  Let  it  be 
remembered  that  Palmer  was  an  Anglican  divine  not  only  of  great 
ability  and  learning,  but  of  a  singularly  judicial  mind  in  addition,  as 
well  as  a  pronounced  opponent  of  distinctively  Roman  doctrines. 


CHAPTEE  YI 

RELIGIOUS    POLICY    OF    EDWARD   VI.    AND    ELIZABETH 
COMPARED 

IT  was,  indeed,  an  irreparable  misfortune  for 
the  Church  and  nation  of  England  that  in  the 
inscrutable  providence  of  God  Henry  VIII.  was 
not  succeeded  by  Elizabeth  instead  of  her  brother, 
a  boy  of  ten,  whose  head  was  turned  by  designing 
flatterers,  and  who  was  a  mere  puppet  in  the  hands 
of  politicians  and  courtiers  who  made  the  reform 
of  religion  a  mask  for  the  plunder  of  the  Church 
in  their  own  sordid  interests.  Till  then  the  leaders 
of  the  Reformation  were  the  native  clergy  through 
their  constitutional  organs,  the  Convocations  of 
both  provinces.  Under  Edward  the  lead  was 
usurped  by  a  band  of  foreigners  and  fanatical 
exiles,  who  desired  not  reform,  but  revolution ; 
republicans  in  politics  and  anarchists  in  religion : 
Calvin,  Bucer,  Peter  Martyr,  Hooper,  Sandys, 
Grindall,  Bullinger,  &c.  Calvin  was  their  leader, 
and  his  aim  was  to  overthrow  the  constitution  of 
the  Church  of  England  and  put  that  of  Geneva  in 
its  place.  Cranmer,  as  usual,  played  a  weak  and 
vacillating  part.  Satisfied  with  the  first  Book  of 


KEVOLUTIONAKY  FANATICS  PEEVAILED   59 

Edward  and  disliking  the  temper  and  revolutionary 
principles  of  the  extreme  Puritans,  he  was  at  first 
opposed  to  any  further  revision.  On  receiving  a 
Eoyal  mandate  to  peruse  and  report  on  the  altera- 
tions proposed  to  be  made  in  the  Book  of  1549,  he 
sent  a  protest  to  the  Council,  of  which  the  drift 
may  be  gathered  from  the  following  extract  :— 

I  know  your  Lordships'  wisdom  to  be  such  as  that 
I  trust  ye  will  not  be  moved  with  those  glorious  and 
unquiet  spirits  which  can  like  nothing  but  that  is  after 
their  own  fancy  ;  and  cease  not  to  make  trouble  when 
things  be  most  quiet  and  in  good  order.  If  such  men 
should  be  heard,  although  the  Book  were  made  every 
year  anew,  yet  it  should  not  lack  faults  in  their  opinion.1 

A  pregnant  commentary  on  the  declaration  of 
the  Act  of  Uniformity  which  ratified  the  second 
Book — namely,  that  '  such  doubts  as  had  been 
raised  in  the  use  and  exercise '  of  the  first  Book 
proceeded  rather  from  '  the  curiosity  of  the 
ministers  and  mistakers  than  from  any  other 
worthy  cause.'  But  the  King,  probably  at  the 
instigation  of  the  astute  men  who  pulled  the 
strings  of  policy,  threatened  that  when  Parliament 
met  he  would  effect  his  purpose  by  exercise  of  the 
Eoyal  authority.2  Cranmer  thereupon  yielded  and 

1  State  Papers  (Domestic)  Edward  VI.  xv.  15. 

2  '  Verum  hoc  non  me  parum  recreat,  quod  mihi  D.  Checus  [Sir 
John  Cheke]  indicavit ;  si  noluerint  ipsi  [episcopij,  ait,  efficere  ut  quse 
mutanda  sint  mutentur,  Bex  per  seipsum  id  faciet ;  et  cum  ad  Parlia- 
mentum  ventum  fuerit,  ipse  suse  Majestatis  authoritatem  interponet.' 
Peter  Martyr's  letter  to  Bucer  in  Strype's  Memorials  of  Cranmer, 
ii.  899.     Cf.  i.  301-2. 


60  CONSEQUENT  ALIENATION 

swam  with  the  stream.  And  so  the  second 
Prayer-Book  of  Edward  superseded  the  first ;  the 
Act  of  Uniformity,  however,  which  ratified  it, 
giving  its  benediction  to  the  first  Book,  and  barely 
disguising  the  scorn  of  the  Parliament  which 
passed  it  for  the  promoters  of  the  second  Book. 

The  result,  as  I  have  said,  was  to  alienate  the 
rulers  of  the  Church,  who  had  guided  the  English 
Eeformation  thus  far  with  so  much  skill  and  dis- 
cretion, and  to  throw  the  movement  into  the 
hands  of  violent  fanatics,  who  were  unconsciously 
used  for  their  own  selfish  ends  by  powerful  politi- 
cians and  noblemen  who  saw  in  an  ecclesiastical 
revolution  a  golden  harvest  of  spoils  from  the  pro- 
perty of  the  Church,  The  natural  consequence 
was  the  national  reaction  under  Mary,  followed 
again  by  the  recoil  caused  by  her  persecuting  zeal 
and  by  the  unpopularity  of  her  Spanish  husband. 
In  that  crisis  the  ecclesiastical  hierarchy  played 
their  cards  with  amazing  folly  and  maladroitness. 
Had  they  been  wise  they  would  have  gathered 
round  Queen  Elizabeth  on  her  accession  and 
hoped  for  the  best.  Her  first  public  acts  were 
in  accordance  with  her  declaration  to  De  Feria, 
that  she  intended  to  restore  religion  as  her  father 
had  left  it.  She  issued  a  proclamation  forbidding 
unlicensed  preaching,  in  order  '  to  restore  universal 
charity  and  concord.'  The  old  services  and  cere- 
monies were  to  be  continued  for  the  present, 
except  that  the  Litany,  the  Ten  Commandments, 


OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  EEFORMEES  61 

the  Lord's  Prayer,  the  Creed,  and  the  Gospel  and 
Epistle  were  to  be  said  in  English.  '  The  model 
of  the  Chapel  Eoyal,  where  the  English  parts  of 
the  service  above  enumerated  were  to  be  mingled 
with  the  Latin,  was  proposed  to  universal  imita- 
tion :  and  the  example  of  the  Sovereign  might 
encourage  the  spirit  of  reconciliation.'1  She  had 
her  sister  buried  in  Westminster  Abbey  with  all 
the  splendour  of  the  old  ceremonial,  requiem  Mass 
and  all.  She  was  herself  crowned  in  accordance 
with  the  ancient  ritual,  except  that  the  Epistle 
and  Gospel  were  read  in  English  and  the  elevation 
of  the  Sacrament  was  omitted  in  the  Mass.  She 
yielded,  indeed,  soon  afterwards  to  the  pressure  of 
some  of  her  Council,  and  modified  her  attitude 
somewhat.  She  had  the  crucifix  and  candles 
removed  from  the  altar  in  her  chapel,  and  sanc- 
tioned the  destruction  of  statues  and  pictures  in 
churches  ;  but  she  soon  acknowledged  her  mistake 
in  a  conversation  with  the  Spanish  ambassador 
some  months  later : — 

Elizabeth  now  [October  3,  1559]  ordered  the  cross  and 
candles  to  be  replaced  in  her  chapel  as  before.  This 
caused  some  disagreement  with  her  Council.  She  said 
they  had  caused  her  to  adopt  measures  which  met  with 
general  disapprobation,  and  that  the  order  to  burn  all 
statues  and  pictures  had  created  great  discontent,  espe- 
cially in  Wales  and  the  North.3 

1  Dixon'a  Hist,  of  the  Church  of  England,  v.  14. 

2  Doc.  from  Svmancas,  p.  64. 


62          THE  QUEEN  DISAPPEOVED  OF  THE 

Indeed,  so  strongly  did  the  Queen  feel  on  the 
subject  that  she  threatened  to  depose  some  Puritan 
bishops,  including  Sandys  and  Jewel,  for  removing 
crucifixes  from  churches.  Jewel,  writing  to  Peter 
Martyr  on  February  4,  1560,  says :  '  As  far  as  I 
can  conjecture  I  shall  not  write  again  as  bishop. 
For  matters  are  come  to  that  pass  that  either  the 
silver  or  tin  crosses,  which  we  have  everywhere 
broken  in  pieces,  must  be  restored,  or  our 
bishoprics  relinquished.' *  And  Sandys,  writing  to 
Peter  Martyr  on  the  1st  of  the  following  April, 
says :  'As  to  myself,  because  I  was  rather 
vehement  in  this  matter  [of  crucifixes  and  images 
in  churches],  and  could  by  no  means  consent  that 
an  occasion  of  stumbling  should  be  afforded  to  the 
Church  of  Christ,  I  was  very  near  being  deposed 
from  my  office  and  incurring  the  displeasure  of 
the  Queen.'2 

But,  strong-minded  as  Elizabeth  was,  she  found 
it  hard,  and  in  some  cases  impossible,  to  carry  out 
her  own  policy  in  ecclesiastical  matters.  We  find 
her  four  years  later  confessing  to  De  Silva,  the 
new  Spanish  ambassador,  that  '  she  had  been 
compelled  to  temporise  at  the  beginning  of  her 
reign  upon  many  points  repugnant  to  her,  but 
that  God  only  knew  the  heart,  and  that  she 
thought  of  restoring  the  crucifixes  to  churches.' 3 

These  declarations   of    Elizabeth    on    various 

1  Zwrich  Letters,  second  series,  i.  68.  a  Ibid.  p.  73. 

3  Documents  from  Simancas,  p.  91. 


POLICY  OP  THE  LEADING  PUEITANS         63 

occasions,  and  to  different  persons,  as  to  her 
religious  convictions  are  confirmed  by  contem- 
porary evidence  and  ratified  by  all  standard  his- 
torians. Two  or  three  examples  may  suffice.  In 
a  letter  to  Cardinal  Loraine,  written  on  Novem- 
ber 3,  1559,  M.  de  Noailles,  the  French  ambas- 
sador in  London,  writes  : — 

Yesterday  this  Queen  celebrated  the  festival  of  All 
Saints  [a  mistake  in  the  date,  unless  he  meant  All  Souls] 
in  her  great  chapel  at  "Westminster  with  much  solemnity. 
She  had  the  wax  tapers  lighted  during  the  services  on  the 
high  altar,  which  she  has  made  them  replace  against  the 
wall  where  it  formerly  stood,  with  the  cross  and  crucifix 
of  silver  thereon.1 

Froude  sums  up  the  situation  pretty  fairly 
between  the  Queen  and  the  Puritans  when  he 

says : — 2 

She  would  have  been  well  contented  with  a  tolerant 
orthodoxy,  which  would  have  left  to  Catholics  their  ritual, 
deprived  of  its  extravagances,  and  to  the  more  moderate 
of  their  opponents  would  have  allowed  scope  to  feel  their 
way  towards  a  larger  creed. 

And  speaking  of  the  Puritans  he  says : — 

At  the  heart  of  the  matter  it  was  they  who  were 
giving  importance  to  what  is  of  no  importance.  .  .  . 
They  would  have  erected  with  all  their  hearts  a  despotism 
as  hard,  as  remorseless,  as  blighting,  as  the  Eomanist. 

It  is  worthy  of  remark,  too,  in  passing,  that  the 
Champion's  traditional  challenge  at  the  Queen's 

1  Miss  Strickland's  Lives  of  the  Qiieena  of  England,  iv.  151. 

2  Froude's  Hist.  v.  23,  80. 


64  ELIZABETH'S  OWN  FEELINGS 

Coronation  has  a  more  Catholic  ring  than  that  of 
Mary's  Champion,  which  was  as  follows  :  — 

Whosoever  shall  dare  to  affirm  that  this  Lady  is  not 
the  rightful  Queen  of  this  kingdom  I  will  show  him  the 
contrary,  or  will  do  him  to  death.1 

The  challenge  of  Elizabeth's  Champion  was 
addressed  to  all  who  should  contest  her  title  as 
'  Queen  of  England,  France,  Ireland,  Defender  of 
the  true  ancient  and  Catholic  faith,  most  worthy 
Empress  from  the  Orcades  Isles  to  the  mountains 
of  Pyrenee.' 2 

The  Puritan  Neale  says  of  the  divines  engaged 
in  reviewing  the  Prayer-Book  of  1558-9  :— 

Their  instructions  were  to  strike  out  all  offensive 
passages  against  the  Pope,  and  to  make  people  easy  about 
the  belief  of  the  corporal  Presence  of  Christ  in  the  Sacra- 
ment ;  but  not  a  word  in  favour  of  the  stricter  Protestants. 
Her  Majesty  was  afraid  of  reforming  too  far;  she  was 
desirous  to  retain  images  in  churches,  crucifixes  and 
crosses,  vocal  and  instrumental  music,  with  all  the  old 
Popish  garments.  It  is  not  therefore  to  be  wondered  at 
that  in  reviewing  the  Liturgy  of  King  Edward  no  altera- 
tions were  made  in  favour  of  those  who  now  began  to  be 
called  Puritans,  from  their  attempting  a  purer  form  of 
worship  and  discipline  than  had  yet  been  established. 
The  Queen  was  more  concerned  for  the  Papists,  and 
therefore,  in  the  Litany,  this  passage  :  From  the  tyranny  of 
the  Bishop  of  Rome,  and  all  his  detestable  enormities,  good 
Lord  deliver  us,  was  omitted.  The  Eubric  that  declared 

1  The  Accession  of  Queen  Mary :  being  the  contemporary  Narrative 
of  Antonio  de  Guaras,  p.  122. 

2  Miss  Strickland's  Lives  of  the  Queens  of  England,  iv.  151. 


AND  RELIGIOUS  POLICY  65 

that  by  kneeling  at  the  Sacrament  no  adoration  was  in- 
tended to  any  corporal  presence  of  Christ  was  expunged. 
...  In  short,  the  service  performed  in  the  Queen's  chapel, 
and  in  sundry  cathedrals,  was  so  splendid  and  showy  that 
foreigners  could  not  distinguish  it  from  the  Roman,  except 
that  it  was  performed  in  the  English  tongue.  By  this 
method  the  Popish  laity  were  deceived  into  conformity 
and  came  regularly  to  church  for  nine  or  ten  years,  till 
the  Pope,  being  out  of  all  hopes,  forbid  them,  by  excom- 
municating the  Queen  and  laying  the  whole  kingdom 
under  an  interdict.1 

Hume,  who  possessed  that  characteristic  of  the 
judicial  temper  which  the  late  Sir  George  Corne- 
wall  Lewis  calls  '  the  requisite  indifference,'  writes 
under  the  date  of  1568  : — 

But  the  Princess  herself,  so  far  from  being  willing  to 
despoil  religion  of  the  few  ornaments  and  ceremonies 
which  remained  to  it,  was  rather  inclined  to  bring  the 
public  worship  nearer  the  Romish  ritual ;  and  she  thought 
that  the  Reformation  had  already  gone  too  far  in  shaking 
off  those  forms  and  observances  which,  without  distracting 
men  of  more  refined  apprehensions,  tend  in  a  very  innocent 
manner  to  allure  and  amuse  the  vulgar.  She  took  care 
to  have  a  law  for  uniformity  strictly  enacted,  wherein  she 
was  empowered  by  the  Parliament  to  add  any  new 
ceremonies  which  she  thought  proper.2 

So  much,  then,  as  to  Queen  Elizabeth's  declara- 
tion on  her  accession  that  she  intended  to  restore 
religion  as  her  father  had  left  it.  She  was  very 
fond  of  her  father,  and  had  a  great  admiration  for 

1  Hist,  of  the  Pwritans,  i.  129,  144.  a  Hist.  v.  12. 

7 


66  ELIZABETH'S  EELIGIOUS  POLICY 

his  policy,1  as  she  told  the  Spanish  Ambassador. 
Her  own  opinions,  moreover,  were  in  tolerable 
harmony  with  the  condition  of  ecclesiastical  affairs 
which  existed  at  Henry  VIII. 's  death,  including 
the  drafts  of  the  Order  of  Communion  and  of  the 
Prayer-Book  of  1549,  which  Cranmer  had  drawn 
up  and  with  which  Elizabeth  was  probably  ac- 
quainted. '  For  herself,'  as  Froude  says,  '  she 
would  have  been  contented  to  accept  the  formulas 
[?  formularies]  which  had  been  left  by  her  father, 
with  an  English  ritual  and  the  Communion  Service 
of  the  first  Prayer-Book  of  Edward  the  Sixth.  .  .  . 
In  her  speculative  theories  she  was  nearer  to  Eome 
than  to  Calvinism,'  and  such  leanings  as  she  had 
in  the  direction  of  Protestantism  *  had  inclined  to 
Luther  and  the  Augsburg  Confession.' 2 

1  '  D^benle  de  haber  predicado  rnucho  la  manera  de  proceder  del 
Eey  su  padre.'     Doc.  from  Simancas,  p.  39. 

2  Hist.  v.  J.15. 


CHAPTEE  VII 

ELIZABETH'S  POLITICAL  NECESSITIES  COINCIDED  WITH 
HER  RELIGIOUS  BELIEF 

AND  now  let  us  see  how  far  Elizabeth's  political 
necessities  coincided  with  her  religious  beliefs  and 
desires. 

What  was  the  position  of  affairs,  domestic  and 
foreign,  when  she  came  to  the  throne  ?  I  have 
described  it  elsewhere,1  and  perhaps  I  may  be 
allowed  to  quote  the  description  here.  '  It  was  a 
situation  of  extreme  peril.  Spain,  the  most  for- 
midable military  and  naval  power  in  Europe,  was 
under  the  rule  of  an  able  and  autocratic  monarch, 
possessing  in  the  Netherlands  a  base  of  operations 
close  to  our  shores  if  he  resolved  on  hostilities 
against  us.  He  kept  so  considerable  a  fleet  there 
that  when  he  returned  to  Spain,  leaving  the 
Duchess  of  Parma  as  Vicegerent  in  Flanders,  he 
was  escorted  by  a  powerful  squadron  of  ninety 
vessels,  which  caused  no  small  anxiety  in  England.2 
The  German  Princes  bore  England  no  good  will,  and 
Denmark  was  doubtful.  But  the  immediate  and 

1  Reformation  Settlement,  pp.  586-592. 

2  Calendar  of  State  Papers,  Nos.  1174,  1175,  1258. 

v  2 


68  ELIZABETH'S  POLITICAL  POLICY 

pressing  danger  was  from  France,  and  the  nature 
of  it  may  be  gathered  from  the  subjoined  extract 
from  Nares's  "  Memoirs  of  Lord  Burleigh,"  written 
after  careful  examination  of  all  the  Burleigh 
papers : — 

*  But  the  actual  degree  of  danger  may  be  best  under- 
stood, as  well  as  the  means  of  providing  against  it,  from  a 
paper  drawn  up  by  Secretary  Cecil,  after  his  accustomed 
manner,  as  a  guide  to  the  Council,  upon  a  pretty  general 
belief  and  opinion  that  France  contemplated  no  less  than 
the  conquest  of  England  this  very  year  [1559].  "  First," 
he  argues,  "  they  would  not  defer  it  because  of  the  doubt 
of  the  Queen  of  Scots'  life.  Secondly,  they  had  now  got 
an  occasion  to  conquer  Scotland,  and  they  had  already 
men  of  war  there,  and  prepared  a  great  army  both  out  of 
France  and  AJmane  [Germany].  Their  captains  were 
appointed  ;  their  victuals  provided ;  their  ships  in  rigging. 
Thirdly,  they  reckoned  within  a  month  to  have  their  wills 
in  Scotland.  Fourthly,  that  done,  it  seemed  most  likely 
they  would  prosecute  their  pretence  against  England ; 
which  had  no  fort  but  Berwick  to  stay  them,  and  that 
was  imperfect,  and  would  be  these  two  years'  day. 
Fifthly,  if  they  offered  battle  with  Almains,  there  was 
great  doubt  how  England  would  be  able  to  sustain  it,  both 
for  lack  of  good  generals  and  great  captains ;  and  prin- 
cipally for  lack  of  people,  considering  the  waste  that  had 
lately  been  by  sickness  and  death  these  three  last  years  ; 
again,  if  it  were  defended  with  strangers,  the  entertainment 
would  be  so  chargeable  in  respect  of  money,  and  so 
hurtful  to  the  realm,  as  it  could  not  be  borne."  These 
questions  were  then  propounded :  First,  what  to  do ; 
next,  whether  it  were  better  to  impeach  the  enemy  in 
Scotland,  now  in  the  beginning,  before  their  army  were 
come,  and  so  to  take  away  their  landing  places ;  or  to 


SUPPOETED  HER  RELIGIOUS  POLICY         69 

prevent  them  therein,  and  to  provide  for  the  defence  of 
the  realm.1 

1  Cecil's  alarmist  paper  shows  the  deep  depres- 
sion and  gloom  which  had  settled  on  the  nation,  of 
which  we  learn  from  other  sources  also.  Constant 
wars  with  France  and  Scotland  had  depleted  the 
exchequer  and  impoverished  the  nation  almost 
beyond  endurance  ;  and  all  this  was  aggravated  by 
a  prolonged  plague  and  famine  which  had  depopu- 
lated whole  districts.  And  to  fill  the  cup  of  misery 
the  national  honour  was  sorely  wounded  by  the  loss 
of  Calais,  which  was  too  fresh  to  be  recognised  as 
a  blessing  in  disguise. 

{ Such  was  the  prospect  which  confronted 
Elizabeth  on  her  accession.  And  behind  it  was  a 
peril  even  more  formidable,  because  more  wide- 
spread and  less  tangible  and  manageable — the  peril 
of  a  religious  crusade  from  abroad  combined  with 
an  insurrection  among  her  own  subjects.  The 
Papacy  then  wielded  an  immense  political  power  in 
Europe,  and  that  power  would  be  arrayed  against 
Elizabeth  in  all  its  vast  and  ubiquitous  ramifica- 
tions if  she  set  it  at  defiance.  Providentially  the 
mutual  rivalry  of  France  and  Spain  prevented 
them  from  contracting  an  alliance  for  the  invasion 
of  England,  which,  humanly  speaking,  would  at 
that  time  have  been  successful.  It  behoved  her 
therefore  to  walk  wisely  and  warily.  What  did  she 

1  Mtmoirt  of  Lord  Burleigh,  ii.  26-7. 


70  NUMERICAL  PEOPOETION  OF 

do  ?  It  says  much  for  her  courage  and  patriotism, 
and  also  for  her  political  sagacity,  that  she  at  once 
set  about  the  restoration  of  her  father's  legislation 
against  the  illegitimate  usurpations  of  Eome.  She 
knew  she  could  carry  her  people  in  the  mass  with 
her  there.  But  to  interfere  with  the  articles  of 
their  creed,  or  with  the  formal  drapery  of  rite  and 
ceremony  in  which  their  creed  was  shrouded  and 
symbolised,  was  another  matter.  "  The  early  lessons 
of  the  nurse  and  of  the  priest  were  not  forgotten. 
The  ancient  ceremonies  were  long  remembered 
with  affectionate  reverence."  l  She  would  prune 
public  worship  of  unwholesome  and  superstitious 
excrescences,  but  was  otherwise,  as  we  have  seen, 
"  resolved  to  restore  religion  as  it  had  been  left  by 
her  father/'  And  for  this  resolution  she  had  good 
reason.  Eoughly  speaking,  the  religious  elements 
of  the  nation  at  that  time  may  be  described  as 
follows.  At  the  antipodes  were  a  small  minority 
of  extreme  Papists  manipulated  by  the  Jesuits  and 
the  Vatican,  and  at  the  other  extreme  a  fanatical 
band  of  Puritans — revolutionists  in  religion  and 
republicans  in  politics — whose  descendants  realised 
their  ideals  of  both  under  the  Commonwealth. 
Between  these  two  extremes  was  the  great  body 
of  the  nation,  who  would  have  quietly  acquiesced 
in  the  English  Liturgy  of  Edward  VI.  with  the 
ceremonial  of  Edward's  second  year — the  old  cere- 

1  Macaulay,  Essay  on  Burleigh  and  his  Times. 


EELIGIOUS  PARTIES  1559  71 

monial,  that  is,  as  fixed  in  Henry's  and  Edward's 
reigns.  De  Feria  says  that  "  the  Catholics  were 
[March,  1559]  two-thirds  of  the  realm,"  and 
another  contemporary  writer,  quoted  by  Froude, 
says  that  they  "  were  in  a  majority  in  every  county 
in  England  except  Middlesex  and  Kent."  1  At  that 
time  the  Puritans  were  numerically  insignificant, 
and  would  probably  have  soon  vanished  but  for  the 
patronage  of  powerful  men  at  Court,  who  used 
them  to  enrich  themselves  with  the  spoils  of  the 
Church. 

'  Such  then  was  the  problem  which  Elizabeth 
had  to  solve  when  she  came  to  consider  the 
settlement  of  the  religious  question  on  her  sister's 
death.  Her  own  convictions  and  proclivities  were 
avowedly  in  favour  of  a  return  to  the  settlement 
of  1547-8,  with  such  modifications  as  the  super- 
session of  the  Latin  Mass  and  Breviaries  by 
the  English  Prayer-Book  required.  And  policy 
coincided  with  her  personal  inclination.  The 
great  majority  of  the  nation  would  have  gradually 

1  Froude,  vii.  20,  68 ;  also  vi.  114.  '  The  interval  of  change  under 
Edward  the  Sixth  had  not  shaken  the  traditionary  attachment  of  the 
English  squires  and  peasantry  to  the  Service  of  their  ancestors.  The 
Protestants  were  confined  chiefly  to  .the  great  towns  and  seaports ; 
and  those  who  deprecated  doctrinal  alteration,  either  from  habit, 
prudence,  or  the  mere  instinct  of  conservatism,  still  constituted  two- 
thirds,  perhaps  three -fourths,  of  the  entire  people.'  Froude  quotes 
the  following  note  on  the  State  of  the  Realm,  at  that  time,  '  in  the 
hand  of  Sir  William  Cecil ' :  '  In  perusing  the  sentences  of  the  Justices 
of  the  Peace  in  all  counties  of  the  Realm,  scantly  a  third  was  found 
fully  assured  to  be  trusted  in  the  matter  of  religion ' :  that  is,  in  any 
conspicuous  innovation  on  the  externals  of  public  worship. 


72  ELIZABETH  STEERED 

accepted  the  compromise.  But  to  have  suddenly 
changed  the  outward  aspect  of  public  worship 
throughout  the  realm  would  have  spread  con- 
sternation and  anger  from  Land's  End  to  the 
Tweed,  and  given  the  foreign  promoters  of  a 
crusading  invasion  the  opportunity  which  they 
needed — a  widespread  insurrection  to  welcome  the 
invaders.  We  know  how  the  comparatively  insig- 
nificant alterations  made  in  public  worship  in  the 
beginning  of  Edward  VI. 's  reign  bred  a  dangerous 
insurrection  in  Devonshire.  With  that  warning 
before  her  Elizabeth  was  far  too  wise  to  offer 
her  people  a  wanton  provocation.  Eeluctantly 
accepting  the  Prayer-Book  of  1552,  with  impor- 
tant alterations,  she  insisted  on  giving  statutory 
authority  to  the  ceremonial  in  authorised  use  in 
Edward's  second  year;  that  is,  some  months 
before  Edward  s  First  Prayer-Book  had  come 
into  use,  or  was  even  a  legal  document.  The 
anticipated  result  followed.  Of  all  the  priests 
then  in  England,  probably  10,000,  including  the 
unbeneficed,  only  some  two  hundred  refused  to 
conform.  The  rest,  with  their  congregations, 
acquiesced  more  or  less  cheerfully  or  resignedly. 
It  is  not  from  them  that  we  hear  loud  cries  and 
lamentations,  but  from  the  "pusillus  grex,"  the 
returned  exiles,  when  they  found  that  Popery,  as 
they  deemed  it,  was  made  legal  and  could  not  be 
upset,  as  they  admitted,  except  by  another  Act  of 
Parliament.  They  devoted  their  energies  there- 


A  MIDDLE  COUESE  73 

fore  to  the  task  of  obtaining  some  relaxation  for 
themselves.  And  they  succeeded.  The  Advertise- 
ments let  the  Puritans  off  with  a  minimum  of 
ritual  observances  while  leaving  the  authorised 
ceremonial  untouched.' 


CHAPTEE  VIII 

THE    SECOND   YEAH   OF   EDWARD  VI. — JUDICIAL  DECISIONS 

THE  meaning  of  '  the  second  year  of  Edward  VI.' 
must  be  sought  in  Elizabeth's  Act  of  Uniformity 
and  Ornaments  Eubric,  together  with  the  first 
Uniformity  Act  of  Edward.  The  part  of  the  Act 
of  1559  which  bears  upon  the  subject  is  as 
follows : — 

Provided  always,  and  be  it  enacted,  that  such  orna- 
ments of  the  Church  and  of  the  ministers  thereof  shall  be 
retained  and  be  in  use  as  was  in  this  Church  of  England 
by  authority  of  Parliament  in  the  second  year  of  the 
reign  of  King  Edward  VI. 

The  Ornaments  Eubric  of  1559  says  : — 

And  here  is  to  be  noted  that  the  minister  at  the  time 
of  the  Communion,  and  at  all  other  times  in  his  minis- 
tration, shall  use  such  ornaments  in  the  church  as  were 
in  use,  by  authority  of  Parliament,  in  the  second  year  of 
the  reign  of  King  Edward  the  Sixth,  according  to  the  Act 
of  Parliament  set  in  the  beginning  of  this  book. 

It  is  admitted  that  the  Eubric  and  the  Act, 
under  a  very  slight  difference  of  phrase,  *  obviously 
mean  the  same  thing.'1  What  is  that  meaning  ? 

1  Judicial  Committee  in  Westerton  v.  Liddell. 


SIB  JOHN  DODSON  ON  SECOND  YEAE        75 

The  Courts  which  have  dealt  with  these  questions 
in  recent  times  have  decided  that  the  ornaments 
referred  to  in  the  Statute  and  Eubric  of  Elizabeth 
are  the  ornaments  prescribed  for  use  by  the  first 
Prayer-Book  of  Edward  VI.  Thus,  in  the  case  of 
Westerton  v.  Liddell,  the  Dean  of  the  Arches,  Sir 
John  Dodson,  ruled  as  follows  : — 

It  has  been  contended  in  argument  that  the  present 
Rubric  has  no  application  to  the  first  Prayer-Book, 
because  the  statute  establishing  that  Book  did  not  come 
into  operation  until  some  time  in  the  third  year.  In 
point  of  dates  the  matter  stood  thus :  King  Edward 
succeeded  to  the  throne  on  January  28,  1547,  and  was 
proclaimed  King  on  the  31st  of  the  same  month;  the 
Parliament  met  in  his  second  year  on  November  4,  1548, 
and  the  Statute  for  establishing  the  Book  of  Common 
Prayer  was  read  for  the  third  time  in  one  House  on 
January  15,  1549,  and  in  the  other  on  the  21st  of  the 
same  month,  and  consequently  in  the  second  year  of  the 
King's  reign.  On  what  day  it  received  the  Eoyal  Assent 
I  have  not  been  able  to  ascertain  ;  but  it  is  probable  that 
no  time  was  lost  in  this  respect,  because  the  Book  was 
known  to  have  been  in  a  state  of  preparation  beforehand, 
and  both  Cranmer  and  the  Protector  Somerset  must  have 
been  anxious  that  it  should  become  law  as  speedily  as  pos- 
sible. It  was  true  the  Book  was  not  in  actual  use  in  the 
churches  until  after  the  expiration  of  the  second  year,  but 
the  law  itself  had  passed  in  that  year  .  .  .  and  I  have  no 
hesitation  in  stating  that  it  is  the  conviction  of  the  Court 
that  the  Eubric  does  recognise  the  first  Book  as  being  of 
Parliamentary  authority  in  the  second  year  of  Edward's 
reign.  Moreover,  the  journal  of  the  transactions  occurring 
in  his  short  reign  kept  by  the  young  King  in  his  own 
handwriting  puts  an  end  to  all  doubts  upon  the  subject. 


76  JUDICIAL  COMMITTEE  ON 

Under  the  head  of  the  second  year,  the  King  wrote :  '  A 
Parliament  was  called  where  an  uniform  order  of  prayers 
was  institute,  before  made  by  a  number  of  bishops  and 
learned  men  gathered  together  in  Windsor.'  l 

The  Judicial  Committee,  in  the  same  case, 
agreed  with  the  Dean  of  Arches  on  this  point,  but 
for  different  reasons.  The  Committee  said  : — 

Their  Lordships,  after  much  consideration,  are  satisfied 
that  the  construction  of  this  Rubric  which  they  suggested 
at  the  hearing  of  the  case  is  its  true  meaning,  and  that 
the  word  'ornaments  '  applies,  and  in  this  Rubric  is  con- 
fined, to  those  articles  the  use  of  which  in  the  services 
and  ministrations  of  the  Church  is  prescribed  by  the 
Prayer-Book  of  Edward  VI. 

Again : — 

The  Queen  was  in  favour  of  the  first  [Book],  but  she 
was  obliged  to  give  way,  and  a  compromise  was  made,  by 
which  the  services  were  to  be  in  conformity  with  the 
second  Book,  with  certain  alterations  ;  but  the  ornaments 
of  the  Church,  whether  those  worn  or  those  otherwise 
used,  were  to  be  according  to  the  first  Prayer-Book. 

Again : — 

It  was  urged  at  the  Bar  that  the  present  Rubric, 
which  refers  to  the  second  year  of  Edward  VI.,  cannot 
mean  ornaments  mentioned  in  the  first  Prayer-Book, 
because,  as  it  is  said,  that  Act  was  probably  not  passed, 
and  the  Prayer-Book  was  certainly  not  in  use,  till  after 
the  expiration  of  the  second  year  of  Edward  VI.,  and  that 
therefore  the  words  '  by  authority  of  Parliament '  must 
mean,  by  virtue  of  Canons  or  Royal  Injunctions  bearing 

1  Moore's  Report,  pp.  92-8. 


EDWARD  VI.'S  SECOND  YEAR  77 

the  authority  of  Parliament  made  at  an  earlier  period. 
There  seems  no  reason  to  doubt  that  the  Act  in  question 
received  the  Royal  Assent  in  the  second  year  of 
Edward  VI.  It  concerned  a  matter  of  great  urgency 
which  had  been  long  under  consideration,  and  was  the 
first  Act  of  the  session ;  it  passed  through  one  House  of 
Parliament  on  January  15,  1549,  N.S.,  and  the  other  on 
the  21st  of  the  same  month ;  and  the  second  year  of  the 
reign  of  Edward  VI.  did  not  expire  till  January  28.  In 
the  Act  of  5  &  6  Edward  VI.  c.  1,  it  is  expressly  referred 
to  as  the  Act  '  made  in  the  second  year  of  the  King's 
Majesty's  reign.'  Upon  this  point,  therefore,  no  difficulty 
can  arise.  It  is  very  true  that  the  new  Prayer-Book  could 
not  come  into  use  until  after  the  expiration  of  that  year, 
because  time  must  be  allowed  for  printing  and  distributing 
the  Books ;  but  its  use,  and  the  injunctions  contained  in 
it,  were  established  by  authority  of  Parliament  in  the 
second  year  of  Edward  VI.,  and  this  is  the  plain  meaning 
of  the  Rubric.1 

I  have  quoted  from  these  two  judgments  so 
fully  in  order  that  the  reader  may  be  able  to  test 
the  validity  of  the  argument  which  follows  by 
immediate  comparison  with  the  reasons  on  which 
the  Court  of  Arches  and  the  Judicial  Committee 
based  their  decisions  as  to  the  meaning  of  l  the 
second  year  of  King  Edward  VI.'  If  those 
reasons  are  untenable,  the  decisions  fall  to  the 
ground.  Both  tribunals  assume  that  the  Royal 
Assent  was  given  to  Edward's  first  Act  of  Uniformity 
in  his  second  regnal  year,  and  both  imply  that, 
failing  that  Assent  in  the  second  year,  their 

1  Moore's  Report,  pp.  156,  158,  160. 


78  JUDICIAL  ARGUMENTS  EXAMINED 

conclusions  respectively  are  illegitimate.  If  the 
premisses  are  unsound  the  conclusions  must  be 
unsound.  Let  us  examine  the  arguments  of  both 
Courts. 

Sir  John  Dodson  admits  that  he  has  '  not  been 
able  to  ascertain  on  what  day  it  [the  Act  of 
Uniformity  of  1549]  received  the  Royal  Assent ; 
but  it  was  probable  that  no  time  was  lost,  because 
the  Book  was  known  to  have  been  in  a  state  of 
preparation  beforehand,  and  both  Cranmer  and  the 
Protector  Somerset  must  have  been  anxious  that  it 
should  become  law  as  speedily  as  possible.'  But 
probabilities — and  this  is  a  slender  one — can  hardly 
justify  a  decision  involving  penal  and  momentous 
consequences.  The  Dean  of  the  Arches  evidently 
saw  this,  for  he  proceeds  to  an  argument  which  he 
thinks  puts  an  end  to  all  doubt.  This  conclusive 
piece  of  evidence  is  our  old  friend  the  entry  in 
King  Edward's  Journal  under  the  head  of  the 
second  year.  Let  me  quote  it  again  : — '  A  Parlia- 
ment was  called  where  an  uniform  order  of  prayers 
was  institute,  before  made  by  a  number  of  bishops 
and  learned  men  gathered  together  in  Windsor.' 
It  is  curious  how  even  learned  and  able  men  are 
apt  sometimes  to  rely  on  arguments  at  second  hand 
without  testing  their  validity.  The  late  Dr.  Bright 
for  example,  Regius  Professor  of  Ecclesiastical 
History  at  Oxford,  and  a  most  able,  learned,  and 
accurate  divine,  quoted  this  extract  from  King 
Edward's  Journal  against  me  in  a  friendly  contro- 


JUDICIAL  ABGUMENTS  EXAMINED  79 

versy  which  I  had  with  him  in  the  Guardian. 
Sir  Lewis  Dibdin  made  use  of  it  in  his  able  speech 
at  the  Lambeth  Hearing.  Arguing  that  the  Eoyal 
Assent  to  Edward  VI.'s  first  Act  of  Uniformity  was 
given  in  the  second  year  of  his  reign,  he  says  : — 

There  is  a  piece  of  evidence  that  I  think  is  worth 
something  as  to  its  being  the  second  year,  or  at  any 
rate  as  to  its  being  considered  the  second  year,  because 
that  is  all  that  I  am  concerned  with.  It  is  in  Edward's 
own  Journal,  which  will  be  found  in  Burnet's  '  History 
of  the  Reformation,'  in  the  documents  attached  to  the 
second  book,  part  2,  book  2,  in  my  edition,  which  is 
A.D.  1681,  p.  5.  Just  at  the  beginning  of  the  collection 
of  records  for  that  date  you  get  his  entry  of  what  hap- 
pened in  the  second  year.  Your  Graces  remember  that 
Edward  did  not  begin  to  keep  this  Journal  from  day  to 
day,  as  it  were,  till,  I  think,  about  the  fourth  year ;  but 
he  jotted  down  the  beginning  of  his  life  under  years, 
beginning  with  his  birth.  There  is  an  entry  for  the 
second  year,  'Year  2,'  and  then  there  are  several  things 
which  do  not  concern  us,  and  the  last  paragraph  is  this  : 
'A  Parliament  was  called,  when  the  uniform  order  of 
prayer  was  institute,  before  made  by  a  number  of  bishops 
in  Windsor.'  No  doubt  that  is  the  first  Prayer-Book. 
At  the  end  of  that  paragraph  there  is  something  else 
which  does  not  concern  us,  and  then  you  get  'Year  3.' 
There  again  it  seems  to  me  that  that  is  valuable 
evidence  that  at  any  rate  it  was  considered  to  be  in  the 
second  year.1 

The  present  Dean  of  the  Arches  Court,  it  will 
be  observed,  is  slightly  more  cautious  than  his 
predecessor,  Sir  John  Dodson.  The  former  thinks 

1  The  Case  against  Incense,  p.  12. 


80  JUDICIAL  ABGUMENTS  EXAMINED 

that  the  entry  in  Edward's  Journal  *  puts  an  end 
to  all  doubt  upon  the  subject '  of  the  Royal  Assent 
having  been  given  to  the  first  Act  of  Uniformity  in 
the  second  year.  The  latter  will  not  commit  him- 
self to  more  than  the  suggestion  that  the  entry  in 
the  King's  Journal  '  is  valuable  evidence  that  at  any 
rate  it  was  considered  to  be  in  the  second  year.' 

Now  let  us  consider  first  of  all  what  the  entry 
in  the  Journal  means :  '  A  Parliament  was  called 
where  an  uniform  order  of  prayer  was  institute, 
before  made  by  a  number  of  bishops  and  learned 
men  gathered  together  in  Windsor.'  We  have 
here  two  statements :  (1)  a  Book  of  uniform  [i.e. 
common]  Prayer  '  was  institute  '  in  Parliament — 
let  us  say,  for  argument's  sake,  in  Edward's  second 
year ;  (2)  this  Book  had  previously  been  '  made 
by  a  number  of  bishops  and  learned  men  in 
Windsor.'  But  there  is  nothing  here  about  the 
Eoyal  Assent.  Nobody  disputes  that  the  first  Act 
of  Uniformity  passed  its  third  reading  in  the  second 
year.  The  King  says  no  more.  He  describes  the 
action  of  Parliament  by  the  word  'institute,'  a 
perfectly  correct  rendering  of  *  conclusa  est,'  the 
phrase  used  in  the  Lords'  Journals  for  the  third 
reading  of  a  Bill. 

But  this  quotation  from  King  Edward's  Journal 
has  an  important  bearing  on  the  argument  most 
relied  upon  by  those  who  contend  that  the  Koyal 
Assent  was  given  to  the  first  Act  of  Uniformity 
in  Edward's  second  year.  The  second  Act  of 


JUDICIAL    AEGUMENTS  EXAMINED  81 

Uniformity  described  the  first  as  '  the  Act  of 
Parliament  made  in  the  second  year  of  the  King's 
Majesty's  reign.'  The  inference  drawn  from  this 
Parliamentary  expression  by  the  Judicial  Com- 
mittee, by  Sir  Lewis  Dibdin  at  the  Lambeth 
Hearing,  and  by  my  cross-examiners  on  the  Koyal 
Commission,  is  that  it  necessarily  and  unquestion- 
ably implies  the  Royal  Assent.  I  shall  consider 
the  validity  of  that  inference  presently.  Here  I 
merely  note  the  sense — which  I  contend  is  its 
Parliamentary  sense — in  which  King  Edward  uses 
it :  namely,  in  the  sense  of  l  drawn  up,'  '  com- 
posed.' 

But  there  is  more  to  be  said  about  the  entry  in 
King  Edward's  Journal.  Edward's  second  year 
ended  on  January  27,  1548-9.  The  Act  of  Uni- 
formity was  read  a  third  time  in  the  House  of 
Lords  on  January  15,  and  came  back  to  the  Lords 
from  the  Commons  on  January  22 — i.e.  five  days 
before  the  end  of  Edward's  second  year.  But  the 
last  day  of  the  regnal  year  was  the  27th,  which 
was  a  Sunday,  and  therefore  does  not  count.  The 
House  of  Lords  sat  sometimes,  but  not  always,  on 
Saturday ;  so  that  there  were  at  most  only  four 
days,  and  possibly  only  three,  before  the  end  of  the 
second  year.  Now,  if  the  Eoyal  Assent  was  given 
to  the  Act  of  Uniformity  before  the  end  of  the 
second  year,  it  must  have  been  by  Commission : 
that  is  not  disputed.  But  in  those  days  Koyal 
Assent  by  Commission  was  an  august  ceremony, 

G 


82  JUDICIAL  AEGUMENTS  EXAMINED 

which  could  not  be  shuffled  through  in  a  hurry.  It 
required  the  King's  '  Letters  Patent  under  his 
Great  Seal,  and  signed  with  his  hand,  and  declared 
and  notified  in  his  absence  to  the  Lords  Spiritual 
and  Temporal,  and  to  the  Commons,  assembled 
together  in  the  High  House.' l  I  have  examined 
the  records  of  Parliament,  and  I  have  not  found  a 
single  case  in  the  sixteenth  century  in  which  these 
formalities  were  omitted  in  the  case  of  a  Eoyal 
Assent  by  Commission.  There  is  no  record  or  hint 
of  such  a  thing  in  the  case  of  the  first  Act  of 
Uniformity,  and  I  submit  that  this  fact  amounts 
to  a  conclusive  proof  that  the  Act  did  not  receive 
the  Royal  Assent  by  Commission  ;  in  other  words, 
that  it  did  not  receive  the  Eoyal  Assent  at  all  in 
the  second  year.  And  the  entry  in  the  King's 
Journal  confirms  this  view.  '  At  the  end  of  that 
paragraph,'  Sir  Lewis  Dibdin  says,  '  there  is  some- 
thing else  which  does  not  concern  us  at  all.'  It 
concerns  us  very  much  indeed,  I  humbly  think. 
But  let  us  see.  The  (  something  else  '  follows  on 
immediately  after  the  sentence  quoted  by  Sir 
John  Dodson  and  Sir  Lewis  Dibdin,  and  is  as 
follows : — 

1  '  Be  it  enacted  by  the  authority  of  this  present  Parliament  that 
the  King's  Eoyal  Assent  by  his  Letters  Patent  under  the  Great  Seal, 
and  signed  with  his  own  hand,  and  declared  and  notified  in  his  absence 
to  the  Lords  Spiritual  and  Temporal  and  to  the  Commons,  assembled 
in  the  High  House,  is  and  ever  was  of  as  good  strength  and  force  as 
though  the  King  had  been  personally  present,  and  had  assented  openly 
and  publicly  to  the  same,  any  custom  or  use  to  the  contrary  notwith- 
standing.' 33  Henry  VIII.  c.  21. 


JUDICIAL  ARGUMENTS  EXAMINED  83 

There  was  granted  a  subsidy,  and  there  was  a  notable 
disputation  of  the  Sacrament  in  the  parliament-house. 
Also  the  Lord  Sudeley,  Admiral  of  England,  was  con- 
demned to  death,  and  died  the  March  ensuing.  Sir 
Thomas  Sharington  was  also  condemned  for  making 
false  coin,  which  he  himself  confessed.  Divers  also  were 
put  in  the  Tower. 

The  King  could  find  time  and  space  for  enter- 
ing these  things  in  his  Journal,  but  omitted,  as 
unworthy  of  notice,  the  most  striking  event  of  that 
year — that  is,  if  the  King  had  given  his  assent  to 
the  Act  with  all  the  pomp  and  dignity  and  previous 
notice  demanded  by  the  occasion.  The  thing  is 
incredible. 

Finally,  the  Royal  Journal  is  worthless  as  a 
record  of  dates.  It  blunders  repeatedly.  For 
instance,  in  the  paragraph  from  which  we  have 
been  quoting  the  King  says :  *  Upon  St.  Peter's 
day  the  Bishop  of  Winchester  was  committed  to 
the  Tower.'  The  bishop  was  committed  to  the 
Tower  the  day  after  St.  Peter's  day.  But  the  King 
himself  supplies  the  means  of  confuting  the  infer- 
ences drawn  from  his  Journal.  '  The  Lord 
Sudeley,'  he  says,  *  was  condemned  to  death,  and 
died  the  March  ensuing.'  This  is  a  decisive  proof 
that  events  were  entered  into  the  Journal  under 
date  of  the  second  year  which  really  happened  in 
the  third  year.  Lord  Sudeley  was  condemned  and 
executed  in  March  in  the  third  year.  But  it  is 
unnecessary  to  dwell  on  this,  for  the  passage  which 

G   2 


84  JUDICIAL  ARGUMENTS  EXAMINED 

has  been  thought  by  eminent  authorities  to  prove 
that  the  Eoyal  Assent  was  given  to  the  first  Act  of 
Uniformity  in  the  second  year  proves,  when  ex- 
amined, the  very  contrary. 

So  much,  then,  as  to  the  alleged  indubitable 
proof  on  which  the  Dean  of  the  Arches  Court  in 
the  case  of  Westerton  v.  Liddell  founded  his  deci- 
sion '  that  the  Rubric  does  recognise  the  first  Prayer- 
Book  as  being  of  Parliamentary  authority  in  the 
second  year  of  Edward's  reign.' 

Let  us  now  consider  the  reasons  on  which  the 
Judicial  Committee  in  Westerton  v.  Liddell  based 
their  decision  that  Edward's  first  Act  of  Uniformity 
received  the  Royal  Assent  in  Edward's  second 
year.1 

1.  The    Act    *  concerned    a    matter    of    great 

urgency  which  had  been  long  under  con- 
sideration.' The  '  great  urgency,'  in  the 
Court's  opinion,  was  the  need  of  speedily 
authorising  the  new  Prayer-Book. 

2.  '  In  the  Act  of  5th  &  6th  Edward  the  Sixth, 

cap.  1,  it  is  expressly  referred  to  as  the  Act 
"  made  in  the  second  year  of  the  King's 
Majesty's  reign."  Upon  this  point,  there- 
fore, no  difficulty  can  arise.' 

Let  us  examine  these  two  arguments.  The  first 
need  not  detain  us.  It  is  quite  untenable.  The 
Prayer-Book  was  not  to  come  into  general  use  till 

1  See  pp.  76-7. 


85 

Whitsunday  in  the  third  year.  There  could,  there- 
fore, be  no  possible  urgency  for  legalising  its  use  by 
commission  three  or  four  days  before  the  end  of  the 
second  year.  Sir  Lewis  Dibdin  saw  the  weakness 
of  their  Lordships'  argument,  and  therefore,  while 
adopting  their  conclusion,  he  rejected  their  major 
premiss,  and  substituted  another  of  his  own. 
'  Your  Graces  may  remember,'  he  said  at  the 
Lambeth  Hearing,  '  that  the  Privy  Council  in 
dealing  with  this  in  Westerton  v.  Liddell  said  the 
matter  was  urgent.  If  I  may  say  so,  the  Lords  of 
the  Privy  Council  were  absolutely  accurate  about 
that.  They  said  it  was  impossible  to  tell  when 
the  assent  was  given.' l  I  may  remark  in  passing 
that  the  last  sentence  is  a  slip  of  memory.  So  far 
from  the  Judicial  Committee  saying  that  '  it  was 
impossible  to  tell  when  the  Eoyal  Assent  was 
given,'  they  said,  as  we  have  just  seen,  that  there 
was  no  doubt  that  the  Assent  was  given  in  the 
second  year.  And  Sir  Lewis,  while  adopting  the 
argument  of  '  urgency,'  knew  that  their  Lordships' 
reason  for  urgency  would  not  hold  water.  Instead, 
therefore,  of  finding  the  cause  of  urgency  in  the 
need  of  legalising  the  Prayer-Book  without  delay, 
he  finds  it  in  the  alleged  necessity  of  releasing 
without  delay  the  prisoners  mentioned  in  the  early 
part  of  the  Act.  That  point  I  will  discuss  later  on. 
I  will  now  deal  with  their  Lordships'  second  argu- 
ment, which  they  considered  decisive — namely, 

1  The  Case  agavnst  Incense,  p.  12. 


86  JUDICIAL  ARGUMENTS  EXAMINED 

that  the  second  Act  of  Uniformity  described  the 
first  as  '  made  in  the  second  year  of  the  King's 
Majesty's  reign.' 

This  argument  was  pressed  on  me  at  great 
length,  as  will  be  seen  in  the  Appendix,  by  Sir  Lewis 
Dibdin  and  other  members  of  the  Royal  Commis- 
sion on  Ecclesiastical  Discipline.  After  carefully 
reconsidering  the  whole  matter,  I  abide  by  what 
I  said  then.  Put  briefly,  my  answer  is  as 
follows : — 

The  Judicial  Committee  decided  that  all  the 
versions  of  the  Ornaments  Eubric  and  Elizabeth's 
Act  of  Uniformity  *  obviously  mean  the  same 
thing.'  It  will  therefore  suffice  here  to  consider 
the  contemporary  Eubric  of  1559,  together  with 
the  Act  of  Uniformity  of  the  same  year.  Let  me 
for  convenience  sake  quote  again  the  Eubric  and 
Act:— 

And  here  is  to  be  noted  that  the  minister  at  the  time 
of  the  Communion  and  at  all  other  times  in  his  ministra- 
tion shall  use  such  ornaments  in  the  Church  as  were  in 
use  by  authority  of  Parliament  in  the  second  year  of  the 
reign  of  King  Edward  the  Sixth,  according  to  the  Act  of 
Parliament  set  in  the  beginning  of  this  book. 

The  portion  of  the  Act  here  appealed  to  says  : — 

Provided  always,  and  be  it  enacted,  that  such  orna- 
ments of  the  Church  and  of  the  ministers  therefore  shall 
be  retained  and  be  in  use  as  was  in  this  Church  of 
England  by  authority  of  Parliament  in  the  second  year 
of  the  reign  of  King  Edward  the  Sixth,  &c. 


JUDICIAL  AEGUMENTS  EXAMINED  87 

What  does  this  language  of  the  Act  and  Rubric 
mean  ?  Two  interpretations  have  been  given.  It 
is  contended  on  the  one  hand  that  the  meaning  o£ 
the  Rubric  is :  '  The  minister  .  .  .  shall  use  such 
ornaments  in  the  church  as  were,  by  authority  of 
Parliament  in  the  second  year  of  King  Ed  ward  VI., 
in  use.'  And  similarly  as  regards  the  Ornaments 
clause  in  the  Act.  Now  I  submit  that  this  con- 
struction is  non-natural  and  hardly  makes  sense ; 
at  least,  it  is  an  awkward  and  clumsy  construction. 
And  if  the  framers  of  the  Act  and  Rubric  meant  it, 
would  they  not  have  said  ? — '  The  minister  .  .  . 
shall  use  such  ornaments  in  the  Church  as  were 
authorised  by  Parliament  in  the  second  year  of 
King  Edward  VI.' 

I  contend,  on  the  other  hand,  that  the  words 
mean :  '  The  minister  .  .  .  shall  use  such  orna- 
ments as  were  in  use  in  the  second  year  of  King 
Edward  VI.  by  authority  of  Parliament.'  That  is 
good  sense  and  good  English.  I  shall  offer  reasons 
further  on  to  show  that  this  is  the  only  tenable 
meaning.  Meanwhile  let  us  examine  the  phrase 
in  Edward's  second  Act  of  Uniformity,  which  the 
Judicial  Committee  in  1857  and  the  present  Dean 
of  the  Arches  and  many  other  lawyers  since  have 
regarded  as  a  decisive  proof  that  Edward's  first 
Act  of  Uniformity  received  the  Royal  Assent  in 
the  second  year  of  the  King's  reign. 

In  the  second  Act  of  Uniformity,  says  the 
Judicial  Committee,  the  first  Act  of  Uniformity 


88  JUDICIAL  AEGUMENTS  EXAMINED 

1  is  expressly  referred  to  as  the  Act  "  made  in  the 
second  year  of  the  King's  Majesty's  reign."  Upon 
this  point,  therefore,  no  difficulty  can  arise.'  I 
submit,  with  great  respect,  that  there  is  nothing  in 
this  argument.  As  a  rule,  statutes  are  said  in 
Parliamentary  parlance  to  be  '  made  '  before  they 
receive  the  Royal  Assent,  and  '  passed  '  after  the 
Royal  Assent.  I  do  not  say  absolutely  that  there 
is  no  exception.  But  I  have  examined  the  Lords' 
Journals  from  Henry  VIII.  to  the  end  of  James  I., 
and  I  cannot  recall  any  exception.  Sometimes, 
but  not  invariably,  a  list  is  given,  after  the  Royal 
Assent  at  the  end  of  the  Session,  of  all  the  Acts  of 
that  Session.  There  is  such  a  list,  I  think,  at  the 
end  of  every  Session  in  the  reign  of  Edward  VI. 
The  list  is  headed  in  every  case  but  one,  'Acts 
passed  in  the  Parliament  holden,'  &c.  In  addition 
to  this  heading  there  is  in  every  case,  without 
exception,  this  marginal  note  in  the  left  top  corner 
of  the  list :  '  Calendar  of  Acts  passed  this  Session.' 
In  7  Edward  VI.  the  heading  is  '  Acts  made,'  &c. ; 
but  the  marginal  note  has  '  passed.' 

I  do  not  lay  much  stress  on  this  Parliamentary 
usage,  for  '  passed '  and  '  made  '  are  used  so  loosely 
that  no  argument,  unsupported  by  other  evidence, 
can  be  safely  built  on  either.  The  fact  is  that  all 
statutes  are  *  made '  by  Parliament,  but  they  have 
no  Parliamentary  authority  till  they  have  secured 
the  Royal  Assent.  The  King  has  not  officially  any 
part  in  the  making  of  Acts  of  Parliament.  It  is 


JUDICIAL  AEGUMENTS  EXAMINED  89 

his  prerogative  to  sanction  or  veto  them,  and 
nothing  prescribed  or  forbidden  by  an  Act  of 
Parliament  can  be  said  to  have  the  authority  of 
Parliament  before  the  Eoyal  Assent,  for  the  King 
might  veto  it  ;  a  contingency  by  no  means  im- 
possible in  the  sixteenth  century.  In  strictness  of 
speech,  indeed,  a  Bill  does  not  become  an  Act  till 
it  has  received  the  Royal  Assent.  But  after  it  has 
received  the  Royal  Assent  it  is  still  correct  and 
common  to  speak  of  it  as  an  Act  '  made '  in  a 
particular  year,  though  the  Royal  Assent  was  not 
given  till  the  following  year,  just  as  it  is  proper  to 
speak  of  a  man-of-war  as  made  in  a  certain  dock- 
yard, though  it  did  not  become  a  man-of-war  till  it 
received  the  King's  commission.  The  second  Act 
of  Uniformity  is  thus  quite  correct  in  describing 
the  first  Act  of  Uniformity  as  '  made  in  the  second 
year  of  the  King's  Majesty's  reign.'  In  Mary's 
first  Act  of  repeal  there  is  a  series  of  sentences  in 
which  '  made '  is  used  in  the  sense  which  I  hold  to 
be  the  correct  one,  e.g. : — 

Be  it  enacted  .  .  .  that  an  Act  made  in  the  Parlia- 
ment begun  at  Westminster  the  fourth  day  of  November 
in  the  first  year  of  the  late  King  Edward  VI.,  and  from 
thence  continued  to  the  twenty-fourth  day  of  December 
then  next  ensuing,  that  is  to  say,  in  the  first  Session  of 
the  same  Parliament ;  .  .  . ;  and  also  one  other  Act 
made  in  one  other  Session  of  the  said  Parliament  holden 
upon  prorogation  at  Westminster  the  fourth  day  of 
November  in  the  second  year  of  the  said  late  King 
Edward  VI.,  and  then  continued  and  kept  to  the 


90  JUDICIAL  ARGUMENTS  EXAMINED 

fourteenth  day  of  March  in  the  third  year  of  the  late 
King's  reign,  entitled  An  Act  for  the  Uniformity  of 
Service  and  Administration  of  the  Sacraments  through- 
out the  Eealm  ;  and  also  one  other  Act  made  in  the 
Session  last  before,  which  is  entitled,  An  Act  to  take 
away  all  Positive  Laws  made  against  the  Marriage  of 
Priests ;  and  also  one  other  Act  made  in  one  other 
Session  of  the  said  Parliament  holden  upon  prorogation 
at  Westminster  the  fourth  day  of  November,  in  the  third 
year  of  the  reign  of  the  said  late  King  Edward  VI.,  and 
then  continued  and  kept  to  the  first  day  of  February  in 
the  fourth  year  of  his  reign,  entitled  An  Act  for  the 
abolishing  and  putting  away  of  divers  Books  and 
Images;  and  also  one  other  Act  made  in  the  same 
Session  last  before  mentioned,  entitled  An  Act  made 
for  the  Ordering  of  the  Ecclesiastical  Ministers ;  and 
also  one  other  Act  made  in  one  other  Session  of  the  said 
Parliament  holden  upon  prorogation  at  Westminster  the 
twenty-third  day  of  January  in  the  fifth  year  of  the 
reign  of  said  King  Edward  VI.,  and  then  continued  and 
kept  till  the  fifteenth  day  of  April  in  the  sixth  year  of 
the  reign  of  the  said  late  King  entitled  An  Act  for  the 
Uniformity  of  Common  Prayer  and  the  Administration 
of  the  Sacraments.  .  .  .l 

1  Made  '  is  obviously  used  in  all  those  cases  in 
the  sense  in  which  King  Edward  used  it  in  the 
well-known  passage  in  his  Journal :  c  A  Parliament 
was  called  when  an  uniform  order  of  prayer  was 
institute,  before  made  ' — i.e.  composed — *  by  a 

1  Observe  here  how  carefully  the  Parliamentary  phraseology 
differentiates  Acts  which  extended  over  two  sessions  from  those  which 
were  passed  in  one  session.  The  first  Act  of  Uniformity  is  invariably 
referred  to  as  2  &  3  Edward  VI.,  which  would  be  inaccurate  if  it  had 
received  the  Royal  Assent  and  had  thus  become  an  Act  in  the  second 
year. 


JUDICIAL  ARGUMENTS  EXAMINED  91 

number  of  bishops  and  learned  men  gathered 
together  in  Windsor.'  The  expression,  therefore, 
which  the  Judicial  Committee  in  1857  set  the 
fashion  of  regarding  as  a  conclusive  proof  that 
Edward's  first  Act  of  Uniformity  received  the 
Royal  Assent  in  Edward's  second  year  proves 
nothing  of  the  kind.  It  merely  means  that  that 
Act,  like  all  other  Acts  of  Parliament,  was  put 
into  shape  and  passed  through  both  Houses  of 
Parliament  in  the  second  year,  which  nobody 
disputes.  But  it  remained  in  suspended  animation 
and  had  no  authority  whatever  till  the  Royal 
Assent  gave  it  legal  validity  in  the  third  year. 
Consequently,  it  follows  that  the  words  '  by  autho- 
rity of  Parliament  in  the  second  year  of  the  reign 
of  King  Edward  VI.'  cannot  refer  to  an  Act  which, 
as  I  hope  to  prove  conclusively,  did  not  receive 
the  King's  assent  till  the  second  month  of  the  third 
year.  Till  then  the  Act  had  no  legal  force  or 
authority  of  any  kind.  Whatever  the  words  mean, 
therefore,  they  cannot  refer  to  Edward's  first  Act 
of  Uniformity  if  I  am  right  in  believing  that  the 
Act  did  not  receive  the  Royal  Assent  in  the  second 
year. 

Let  us  now  consider  my  interpretation  of  the 
words — namely,  that  they  refer  to  the  ritual  and 
ceremonial  usage  of  the  second  year  of  Edward  VI., 
not  to  the  date  of  the  Parliamentary  authority 
which  sanctioned  those  rules  and  ceremonies. 
That  view  has  been  the  received  interpretation 


92  JUDICIAL  ARGUMENTS 

from  Elizabeth's  day  till  our  own.  It  is  unneces- 
sary to  trouble  the  reader  with  a  catena  of 
authorities.  Two  or  three  examples  may  suffice. 
On  March  1,  1640-1641,  the  Lords  appointed  a 
very  influential  committee  to  report  on  Puritan 
complaints  against  the  doctrine,  discipline,  and 
ceremonial  observances  of  the  Church.  The  Peers 
were  at  this  time  under  the  shadow  of  a  revolution, 
political  and  religious,  and  it  is  evident  that  with  a 
view  to  preserve  their  own  order  and  privileges, 
the  leading  men  among  them  determined  to  re- 
model the  Prayer-Book  and  abolish  almost  every- 
thing except  the  episcopal  office.  Some  of  the 
leading  divines  of  the  period  were  also  prepared  to 
throw  masts  and  rigging  overboard  in  the  hope  of 
saving  at  least  the  hull  of  the  ship.  Vain  attempt, 
as  the  event  proved.  The  Committee  consisted  of 
ten  earls,  ten  bishops,  ten  lay  barons,  and  '  they  were 
empowered  to  associate  with  themselves  as  many 
learned  divines  as  they  pleased.'  They  availed 
themselves  of  this  permission,  and  among  the 
divines  chosen  were  Archbishop  Ussher,  Doctors 
Prideaux,  Warde,  Twisse,  Hacket,  Sanderson, 
Brownrigg,  Waite,  Holdsworth,  Featley,  Burgess, 
and  Calamy.  Prideaux,  Sanderson,  and  Brownrigg 
were  afterwards  promoted  to  the  Episcopate. 
Warde  was  one  of  the  translators  of  the  Bible,  and 
afterwards  Lady  Margaret  Professor  of  Divinity  at 
Cambridge,  an  office  in  which  he  was  succeeded  by 
Holdsworth.  In  fact,  all  the  divines  on  the  Lords' 


AND  HISTOKICAL  FACTS  93 

Committee  were  distinguished  for  learning  and 
integrity,  and  represented  various  schools  of 
theology.  Taking  the  Committee  as  a  whole,  lay- 
men and  ecclesiastics,  it  would  have  been  difficult 
to  select  a  more  influential  and  representative  body 
of  men.  And  what  did  they  say  as  to  the  Orna- 
ments Eubric  ?  They  recommended  '  whether 
the  Rubric  should  not  be  mended  where  all  vest- 
ments in  time  of  Divine  Service  are  now  com- 
manded which  were  used  2  Edward  VI.'  Surely 
this  is  decisive  on  two  points :  first,  that  in  the 
year  1640  the  Ornaments  Eubric  was  understood 
by  all  parties  and  scholars  to  order  the  Eucharistic 
vestments;  next,  that  the  Eubric  prescribed  the 
ornaments  ' which  were  used  '  in  the  second  year 
of  Edward  VI.,  not  the  ornaments  which  could 
not  come  into  use  by  authority  of  Parliament  till 
the  third  year. 

In  May,  1641,  the  following  ordinance  was 
passed  by  both  Houses  of  Parliament : — 

No  copes,  surplices,  superstitious  vestments  [e.g. 
chasubles],  roods  or  rood  lofts,  or  holy  water  font,  shall 
be  or  be  any  more  used  in  any  church  or  chapel  within 
this  realm.1 

A  hard  nut  this  for  the  Judicial  Committee  in 
the  Purchas  case.  How  did  they  deal  with  it? 
In  a  fashion  characteristic  of  that  august  tribunal, 
which  decided  that  the  Advertisements  of  1566 

1  Ordinances,  1644,  c.  88.  (Scobell's  Collections  2658,  p.  69.)  Cf. 
Harl.  Misc.  viii.  107,  where  the  collection  of  Ordinances  is  also  given. 


94  JUDICIAL  ARGUMENTS 

had  forbidden  and  swept  clean  away  the  very  vest- 
ments which  a  Parliamentary  committee  of  experts 
declared  in  1641  l  are  now  commanded.'  The 
Court  unwisely  gave  their  reasons  for  rejecting  the 
inference  which  any  body  of  intelligent  and  un- 
prejudiced men  would  consider  inevitable.  The 
recommendation  of  the  Lords'  Committee,  they 
said,  '  applies  to  the  earlier  Rubric.'  But  both 
Rubrics  '  obviously  mean  the  same  thing,'  accord- 
ing to  the  decisions  of  the  same  Court  in  the  year 
1857.  Next,  said  their  Lordships,  'the  sugges- 
tion did  not  emanate  from  the  House  of  Lords.' 
It  came  from  a  most  able  and  learned  Committee 
appointed  by  the  House  of  Lords  to  report,  inter 
alia,  on  this  very  thing,  and  there  is  no  record  of 
a  single  peer — and  there  were  peers  of  great  learn- 
ing and  legal  knowledge  in  the  House — having 
questioned  the  suggestion.  The  third  and  last 
answer  of  the  Court  is  that  '  the  suggestion  was 
never  adopted  by  that  body.'  I  have  just  quoted 
the  Ordinance  adopting  it  three  years  afterwards. 

So  much  for  the  kind  of  history  on  which  the 
Judicial  Committee  is  accustomed  to  base  its 
judgments  in  causes  ecclesiastical. 

Let  us  leap  down  half  a  century  and  see  what 
was  the  common  interpretation  of  the  Ornaments 
Rubric  in  the  year  1688.  In  that  year  Richard 
Baxter  and  some  of  his  friends  made  proposals 
for  a  reform  of  the  Prayer-Book,  and  insisted  that 
'  among  the  most  necessary  alterations  of  the 


AND  HISTORICAL  FACTS  95 

Liturgy '  was  '  that  the  Eubric  for  the  old  orna- 
ments which  were  in  use  in  the  second  year  of 
King  Edward  VI.  be  put  out.'  Here  we  have  the 
distinguished  and  saintly  leader  of  the  Puritans 
in  1688,  agreeing  with  the  Lords'  Committee  in 
1641,  that  the  Ornaments  Eubric  still  prescribed 
legally  the  ornaments  which  were  in  use  in  Edward's 
second,  not  those  which  were  ordered  to  come  into 
use  in  his  third,  year. 

It  is  not  necessary  to  trouble  the  reader  with 
more  authorities — although  they  exist  in  abund- 
ance— to  prove  that  the  uniform  interpretation  of 
the  Ornaments  Eubric  down  to  our  own  time  has 
been  that  it  prescribes  the  retention  of  the  orna- 
ments which  were  '  in  use '  in  Edward's  second 
year.  Eor  the  argument  which  would  restrict  '  the 
second  year '  to  '  by  authority  of  Parliament,'  to 
the  exclusion  of  the  words  { were  in  use,'  has  not, 
as  far  as  I  remember,  a  shred  of  support  from  con- 
temporary or  subsequent  commentators  down  to 
the  middle  of  the  nineteenth  century. 


CHAPTEE    IX 


I  USED  an  argument  before  the  Royal  Commission 
with  which  Dr.  Gibson  dealt  very  severely,  and  in 
part  somewhat  irrelevantly.  The  Ornaments  clause 
of  the  Uniformity  Act  of  Elizabeth  uses  an  expres- 
sion which  puzzled  Archbishop  Temple  at  the 
Lambeth  Hearing,  and  which  has  been  characterised 
as  ungrammatical.  The  Act-  says :  '  Provided 
always,  and  be  it  enacted,  that  such  ornaments  of 
the  Church  and  of  the  ministers  thereof  shall  be 
retained  and  be  in  use  as  was  in  this  Church  of 
England,'  &c.  I  hold  that  the  verb  '  was  '  here 
is  not  governed  by  *  ornaments '  as  a  nominative, 
but  stands  independently  and  means  '  existed ' : 
a  usage  recognised  by  writers  of  the  sixteenth 
century.  This  construction  is  corroborated  by  the 
Latin  translation  of  Elizabeth's  Act  of  Uniformity, 
which  says :  '  Provisum  atque  statutum  sit,  quod 
talia  Ecclesiastica  Ornamenta  et  Ministrorum 
eiusdem  conservabuntur  et  usui  subservient,  quem- 
admodum  mos  erat  in  hac  Ecclesia  Anglicana 
ex  auctoritate  Parliamenti  in  anno  secundo  Eegis 
Edwardi  6,'  &c. 


LATIN  ACT  OP  UNIFOEMITY  97 

Both  in  my  book  on  '  The  Eeformation  Settle- 
ment '  and  in  my  examination  by  the  Eoyal  Com- 
mission I  appealed  to  the  phrase  '  quemadmodum 
mos  erat '  as  a  contemporary  and  authoritative 
explanation  of  c  was '  in  the  English  version  of 
the  Act,  and  of  the  meaning  of  '  the  second 
year '  in  both  Act  and  Kubric  :  namely,  that  it  is 
connected  with  the  usage  of  that  year,  and  not  with 
'  by  authority  of  Parliament.'  Dr.  Gibson's  first 
assault  on  this  argument  was  based  on  *  the  extra- 
ordinary mistranslations  and  inaccuracies  that 
there  are  in  the  [Latin]  book.'  He  asked  me 
repeatedly  if  I  still  relied  on  the  words  '  quemad- 
modum mos  erat '  in  spite  of  the  inaccuracy. 
But  that  is  a  pure  irrelevancy.  There  is  no  con- 
nection between  the  Latin  Prayer-Book  and  the 
Latin  translation  of  Elizabeth's  Act  of  Uniformity. 
They  are  the  work  of  different  hands.  There  are 
no  '  extraordinary  mistranslations  and  inac- 
curacies '  in  the  Latin  Act  of  Uniformity,  and  its 
authority  is  quite  unaffected  by  any  mistransla- 
tions and  inaccuracies  in  the  Latin  Prayer-Book. 

But  this  was  a  preliminary  skirmish  on  the 
part  of  Dr.  Gibson.  The  point  which  he  con- 
sidered conclusive  against  my  argument  was,  as  he 
maintained,  that  there  was  no  c  contemporary,  or 
authorised,  or  legal '  translation  of  Elizabeth's 
Act  of  Uniformity.  He  had  Clay's  edition, c  which 
I  have  tested,'  he  said, '  by  the  original  copy  in  the 
British  Museum,'  '  and  the  Act  of  Uniformity  [in 

H 


98  LATIN  ACT  OF  UNIFOEMITY 

Latin]  does  not  exist,  nor  does  the  Ornaments 
Rubric.' l  I  too  had  carefully  read  and  annotated 
Clay's  able  and  learned,  but  not  infallible,  books.2 
I  also  had  examined  all  the  various  editions  of 
the  Latin  Prayer-Book  in  the  British  Museum ; 
the  Eecord  Office ;  the  Bodleian ;  Christ's  College, 
Cambridge  ;  the  Kolls  Office,  Dublin  (through  the 
kindness  of  the  Master  of  the  Eolls)  ;  and  in  the 
library  of  Trinity  College,  Dublin  (by  the  kind- 
ness of  Professor  Mahafiy  and  the  Librarian 
of  Trinity  College).  In  none  of  them  is  there  a 
copy  of  the  Latin  Prayer-Book  of  1560  containing 
the  Act  of  Uniformity  in  Latin.  I  have  not  been 
able  to  trace  any  earlier-printed  edition  of  the 
Latin  Act  of  Uniformity  than  that  which  is  prefixed 
to  the  Latin  Book  of  1572. 

Prima  facie,  therefore,  there  is  so  much  to  be 
said  for  Dr.  Gibson's  assertion  that  I  gave  up  the 
point  provisionally  before  the  Eoyal  Commission, 
as  I  had  only  my  memory  to  rely  on  and  could  not 
on  the  moment  bring  any  direct  evidence  in  sup- 
port of  my  view,  that  there  was  a  Latin  version 
of  the  Act  of  Uniformity,  and  an  authorised  one, 
as  early  as  1560. 

In  his  edition  of  '  The  Liturgies,  &c.,  of  Queen 
Elizabeth,'  Clay  writes  as  follows  : — 3 

1  Appendix  A,  p.  350. 

2  Liturgical  Services,  dc.,  of  Elizabeth',  Private  Prayers  of  the 
Reign  of  Elizabeth ;  the  Book  of  Common  Prayer  illustrated:  an 
admirable  book. 

3  Preface,  p.  xxiv. 


DATE  OF  LATIN  PEAYEE-BOOK  99 

The  date  usually  assigned  to  the  Latin  Prayer-Book  is 
1560;  in  spite  of  Dibdin's  assertion  ('Typ.  [sic  f]  Antiq.' 
vol.  iv.  p.  25)  that  this  date  is  merely  conjectural,  the 
common  opinion  is  undoubtedly  correct.  For  not  only 
were  Elizabeth's  Letters  Patent  issued  on  April  6  in  that 
year,  but  in  the  account  of  the  Cyclus  Solaris  we  have  the 
following  expression :  Annus  prasens,  1560.  Herbert, 
indeed,  (Ames,  p.  1602)  mentions  a  Latin  Prayer-book 
printed  by  Wolf  in  1559  (which  date  has  been  written 
upon  the  first  page  of  Mr.  Maskell's  copy  l}.  Still,  if  we 
may  judge  from  his  mode  of  quoting  the  title,  he  could 
hardly  have  seen  the  work  he  meant. 

I  do  not  agree  with  Clay's  last  remark.  In  his 
edition  of  Ames's  Topographical  Antiquities — to 
which  Clay  persistently  refers  as  '  Typ.  Antiq.' — 
Herbert  puts  down  under  the  date  of  1559 : 
1  A  Latin  Prayer-Book,  the  first  of  Q.  Elizabeth.' 
I  do  not  see  why  we  should  infer  from  this  that 
Herbert  '  could  hardly  have  seen  the  work  he 
meant.'  But  whether  he  saw  it  or  not  there 
was  undoubtedly  an  edition  of  Elizabeth's  Latin 
Prayer-Book  in  1559.  One  copy  of  this  edition 
is  in  the  library  of  Trinity  College,  Dublin.2 

There  was  a  very  good  reason  why  there  should 
be  an  edition  of  the  Latin  Prayer-Book  in  1559. 
The  Irish  Act  of  Uniformity  sanctioning  the 
English  Prayer-Book  of  1559  has  the  following 
direction : — 

1  Which  Clay  erroneously  thought '  unique.' 

2  The  title-page  of  this  book  is  as  follows :  '  Excusum  Londini  apud 
Beginaldum  Wolfium,  Regise  Majest.  in  Latinis  typographum.     Cum 
privilegio  Regise  Majestatis.     [1559.] ' 

H  2 


100  LATIN  PRAYER-BOOK 

That  in  every  such  church  or  place  where  the  common 
minister  or  priest  hath  not  the  use  or  knowledge  of  the 
English  tongue  it  shall  be  lawful  for  the  same  common 
minister  or  priest  to  say  or  use  the  Matins,  Evensong, 
celebration  of  the  Lord's  Supper,  and  administration  of 
each  of  the  Sacraments,  and  all  the  common  and  open 
Prayer,  in  the  Latin  tongue,  in  such  order  and  form  as 
they  be  mentioned  and  set  forth  in  the  said  Book  estab- 
lished according  to  the  tenor  of  this  Act,  and  none  other- 
wise or  in  other  manner,  anything  before  expressed  or 
contained  in  this  Act  to  the  contrary  notwithstanding. 

That  the  Latin  Prayer- Book  was  largely  used 
in  Divine  Service  in  Ireland  we  know.  Trollope 
reports  to  Secretary  Walsingham  in  1587  that 
1  when  the  Irish  clergy  must  of  necessity  go  to 
church  they  carry  with  them  a  book  in  Latin  of 
the  Common  Prayer  set  forth  and  allowed  by  her 
Majesty.' *  The  Irish  Parliament  which  passed 
the  Act  of  Uniformity  met  in  January  1560.  It 
was  necessary,  therefore,  that  a  Latin  edition  of 
the  Prayer-Book  should  be  sent  to  Dublin  in  time 
for  its  submission  to  Parliament.  In  confirmation 
of  this  view  there  is  a  memorandum  from  Sir  John 
Mason  (who  had  charge  of  the  business)  to 
Secretary  Cecil,  dated  August  11,  1559,  which 
says  :  '  The  Book  of  Common  Prayer  in  Latin  is 
ready  to  print.'2 

Though  casting  doubt  on  Herbert's  assertion 
that  there  was  an  edition  of  the  Latin  Prayer- 

1  State  Papers  concerning  the  Irish  Church,  by  Dr.  Brady,  p.  111. 
1  Calendar  of  State  Papers,  Domestic,  1547-1580,  p.  136. 


USED  IN  IRELAND  101 

Book  published  in  1559,  Clay  admits  that  there  is 
indirect  evidence  to  show  that  '  the  Book  was 
published,  or  at  least  was  ready  for  publication, 
before  Elizabeth's  issue  of  the  Latin  Prayer-Book.' 
And  his  critical  instinct  led  him  to  ask,  '  Had  the 
Book  so  prepared  any  connection  with  the  first 
Act  of  Uniformity  passed  by  the  Irish  Parliament 
in  the  previous  January  ?  ' l  Undoubtedly  it  had. 
The  following  is  also  worth  quoting  from  Clay  : — 

Wolf  in  1571  (or  rather  in  1572,  for  the  Psalter  has 
both  dates)  sent  out  what  we  may  rightly  deem  the 
earliest  version  into  Latin  of  the  whole  Prayer-Book 
(Herbert's  '  Ames,'  p.  611).  This  the  other  printers  care- 
fully followed,  and  the  copies  (octavo)  more  commonly 
met  with,  though  still  very  rare,  are  one  in  1574  by 
Vautrollier,  and  another  in  1594  by  Jackson.  Wolf's 
edition  (and  likewise  the  others)  came  out  '  Cum 
privilegio  Regise  Maiestatis  ' ;  the  Act  of  Uniformity  is 
prefixed. 

I  have  a  copy  without  date,  *  excusum  Londini 
per  assignationem  Francisci  Florae.  Cum  privilegio 
Kegiae  Maiestatis.'  It  has  also  in  the  Calendar 
the  words  :  Itaque  annus  hicprcesens  1560  currentis 
cycli  Solaris  est.  But  the  Psalter,  with  the  date 
of  1574,  is  added  to  the  volume.  I  do  not  attach 
great  importance  to  '  Cum  privilegio  Eegiae  Maies- 
tatis,' but  am  entitled  to  say  that  it  raises  a  pre- 
sumption that  the  book  so  privileged  possessed  at 
least  a  quasi-Eoyal  authority. 

1  Liturgies  of  Queen  Elizabeth,  p.  xxiii. 


But  why  was  the  Uniformity  Act  of  1559  trans- 
lated into  Latin  at  all  ?  I  hazard  the  conjecture 
that,  like  the  1559  impression  of  the  Latin  Prayer- 
Book,  it  was  sent  over  to  Ireland  for  the  benefit 
of  such  clergy  and  laity  as  did  not  understand 
English.  Of  course  it  could  not  have  been  annexed 
to  the  Prayer-Book,  as  that  was  still  unsanctioned 
by  the  Irish  Parliament.  But  it  is  certain  that, 
pace  Dr.  Gibson,  the  Latin  Act  of  Uniformity  was 
in  the  most  literal  sense  contemporary  with  the 
English  Act.  There  is  indisputable  evidence  that 
it  existed  in  an  authoritative  form  in  Latin  not 
later  than  the  year  1560.  This  is  proved  con- 
clusively by  two  interesting  documents  in  the 
British  Museum.  They  are  among  the  Lansdowne 
Manuscripts,  and  belonged  originally  to  the  manu- 
scripts of  Lord  Burleigh  (Secretary  Cecil).1  They 
are  written  by  the  same  hand  on  a  single  sheet  of 
paper,  and  are  attributed,  in  the  same  handwriting, 
to  Archbishop  Parker.  I  have  compared  the  hand- 
writing with  several  specimens  of  Parker's,  whose 
handwriting  varies  considerably.  When  he  is 
copying  he  writes  a  neat  small  hand  not  unlike 
that  of  the  MS.  subjoined.  But  I  am  inclined,  on 
the  whole,  to  think  that  it  is  the  handwriting  of  a 
secretary,  who,  as  secretaries  sometimes  do,  fell 
into  the  way  of  imitating  his  master's  hand.  The 
following  is  a  transcript  of  the  document,  verbatim 
et  literatim : — 

1  The  reference  is  Lansdowne  MSS.  120,  ff.  79-80. 


WAS  TEANSLATED  INTO  LATIN  103 

By  Dr.  Parker, 
Abp.  of  Canterbury. 

A  note  of  the  differences 
betwene  Kinge  Edward  his 
second  booke,  and  her  Ma*1*3 
booke  of  Common-Prayer. 

First  Kinge  Edward  his  second  booke  differeth  from 
her  Maties  booke  in  the  first  Rubrikes  sett  downe  in  the 
begynning  of  the  booke.  For  K.  Edwardes  second  booke 
hath  it  thus:  The  morning  and  evening  prayer  shalbe 
used  in  Such  place  of  the  Church,  Chappell  or  Chancell, 
and  the  Minister  shall  turne  him,  as  the  People  may.  best 
heare :  And  if  there  be  any  controversie  therin,  the 
matter  shalbe  referred  to  the  Ordinary,  and  hee  or  his 
Deputee  shall  appoynt  the  place.  And  the,  etc. 
Agayne  K.  Edwardes  second  booke  hath  thus  : 
Agayne  here  is  to  be  noted,  that  the  Minister  at  the 
tyme  of  the  Communion,  and  at  all  other  tymes  in  his 
Ministration,  shall  use  Neither  Albe,  Vestment  nor  Cope. 
But  being  Archbishop  or  Bishop  he  shall  have  and  weare 
a  Eochett,  and  beeing  a  Priest  or  Deacon  he  shall  have 
and  weare  a  surplisse  only. 

Wheras  the  Quenes  booke  hath  it  thus  :  The  morn- 
ing and  Evening  prayer  shalbe  used  in  the  accustomed 
place  of  the  Church,  Chappell,  or  Chauncell,  except  it 
shalbe  otherwise  determined  by  the  Ordinary  of  the  place. 
And  the  Chauncells  shall  remayne  as  they  have  done  in 
tymes  past. 

And  here  is  to  be  noted,  that  the  Minister  at  the  tyme 
of  the  Communion,  and  at  all  other  tymes  in  his  minis- 
tration, shall  use  such  ornaments  in  the  Church,  as  were 
in  use  by  authoritie  of  Parliament  in  the  second  yere  of 
the  raign  of  Kyng  Edwarde  the  6,  according  to  the  act  of 
Parliament  sett  in  the  beginning  of  this  booke.  Secondly 
in  K.  Edw.  second  booke  in  the  Letany  there  are  these 
wordes :  From  the  tyranny  of  the  B.  of  Eome  and  all 


104        WHY  AND  WHEN   UNIFORMITY  ACT 

his  detestable  enormitees :  which  are  not  in  her  Matios 
booke. 

Thirdely  in  the  Letanie,  her  Matis  booke  hath  these 
wordes  more  then  are  in  K.  Edw.  second  booke,  viz. : 
Strengthen  in  the  true  worshipping  of  thee  in  righteousnes 
and  true  holynes  of  lyfe  etc. 

Fourthly  in  the  ende  of  the  Letany  there  is  no  prayer 
in  K.  Edw.  second  booke  for  the  King  nor  for  the  state  of 
the  Clergie.  And  the  last  Collect  sett  in  her  Maties  booke 
next  before  the  firste  Sonday  in  Aduent,  and  beginning, 
0  God  whose  nature  and  propertee  is  euer  to  have  mercy, 
is  not  in  K.  Edw.  second  booke.  Furder  there  are  two 
Collects  appoynted  for  the  tyme  of  dearth  and  famine, 
wheras  her  Maties  booke  hath  but  one.  And  in  K.  Edwa. 
second  booke,  this  note  is  geuen  of  the  prayer  of 
St.  Chrysostome,  The  Letany  shall  euer  end  with  this 
collect  following,  which  Note  is  not  in  her  Matics  booke. 

Fiftely  K.  Edw.  second  booke  appoynteth  onely  these 
wordes  to  be  used,  when  the  bread  is  deliuered  at  the 
Communion,  Take  and  eate  this  in  remembrance  that 
Christe  dyed  for  the,  and  feede  on  him  in  thine  heart  by 
fayth  with  thankes-geuing.  And  when  the  Cupp  is 
deliuered  Drink  this  in  remembrance  that  Christes  bloud 
was  shedd  for  thee,  and  be  thankfull. 

Statutum  Elizabeths. 
Primo. 

Et  qu6d  idem  liber,  cum  eo  divini  cultus,  administra- 
tionis  Sacramentorum,  rituum  et  ceremoniarum  ordine, 
alterationibus  insuper  et  additionibus  quae  eisdem 
adiiciuntur  et  per  hoc  Statutum  assignantur,  in  pleno  suo 
valore  ac  vigore  permanebit ;  Eritque  de  et  a  festo 
Natiuitatis  Johannis  Baptistse,  juxta  tenorem  et  effectum 
huius  Statuti :  Ee  quacunque  in  praedicto  abrogationis 
Statute  in  contrarium  non  obstante. 

Cum    unica     alteratione    vel    additione    quarundam 


WAS  TRANSLATED  INTO  LATIN  105 

lectionum  singulis  diebus  Dominicis  per  annum  recitan- 
darum :  etiam  cum  Litaniarum  forma  alterata  et 
emendata :  duabusque  etiam  sententiis  solummodo 
adiunctis,  in  Sacramento  communicantibus  tradendo,  nee 
alia  ulla  nee  alio  modo. 

Provisum  atque  statutum  sit,  quod  talia  Ecclesiastica 
Ornamenta  et  Ministrorum  eiusdem  conservabuntur  et 
usui  subservient,  quemadmodum  mos  erat  in  hac 
Ecclesia  Anglicana  ex  auctoritate  Parliamenti  in  anno 
secundo  Kegis  Edwardi  6.,  donee  alius  ordo  constitutus 
fuerit  a  Eeginea  Maiestate  cum  Consilio  Commis- 
sionariorum,  qui  ad  causas  Ecclesiasticas  assignantur 
auctorizanturque  sub  magno  Angliae  Sigillo,  vel  Metro- 
politani  huius  Eegni. 

Atque  etiam  si  contemptus  aliquis  aut  irreverens  quid 
circa  ceremonias  vel  ritus  Ecclesiasticos  evenerit,  abusione 
nimirum  ordinum  in  libro  assignatorum,  quod  Eeginea 
Maiestas  simili  utens  consilio  eorundem  Commis- 
sionariorum  vel  Metropolitani  statuere  et  publicare 
poterit,  ulteriores  ceremonias  vel  ritus,  sicut  maxime 
expedire  videbitur,  &c. 

It  is  unquestionable  that  this  manuscript  pre- 
ceded the  year  1561,  for  it  omits  a  number  of  other 
differences  between  the  two  Prayer-Books  which 
were  made  in  the  early  part  of  1561.  But  inas- 
much as  the  extract  from  the  Act  of  Uniformity  is 
on  the  same  sheet  of  paper  and  in  the  same  hand- 
writing, this  also  fixes  the  date  of  the  Latin  version 
of  the  Act  of  Uniformity  as  not  later  than  1560, 
and  it  gives  it  in  addition  the  imprimatur  of 
Archbishop  Parker  and  indirectly  of  Cecil. 

The  reader  will  observe  that  in  this  extract 
from  the  Act  of  Uniformity  two  separate  quotations 


106       WHY  AND  WHEN  UNIFOBMITY  ACT 

from  the  beginning  of  the  Act  are  prefixed  to  the 
Ornaments  clause  without  any  break  between. 
There  is  no  other  difference  except  that  in  the 
first  sentence  of  the  extract  *  valore  *  takes  the 
place  of  '  robore  '  in  the  usual  Latin  version  of  the 
Act. 

But  why  did  Parker  send  to  Cecil  this  *  note  of 
the  differences  '  between  King  Edward's  Book  and 
Elizabeth's,  together  with  the  Ornaments  clause 
of  the  Act  ?  I  suggest  the  following  explanation. 
On  January  20,  1561,  Elizabeth  sent  a  second  issue 
of  Letters  Patent  to  Parker,  claiming  power  as 
follows  to  take  further  order  under  the  Act  of 
Uniformity : — 

Letting  you  to  understand  that  when  it  is  provided  by 
Act  of  Parliament  holden  in  the  first  year  of  our  reign, 
that  whensoever  we  shall  see  cause  to  take  further  order 
in  any  rite  or  ceremony  appointed  in  the  Book  of  Common 
Prayer,  and  our  pleasure  known  therein,  either  to  our 
Commissioners  for  causes  ecclesiastical,  or  to  the  Metro- 
politan, that  then  eftsoons  consideration  should  be  had 
therein. 

After  sundry  orders  in  matters  ecclesiastical, 
including  the  care  and  adorning  of  churches,  and 
alterations  and  additions  in  the  Lessons  to  be  read 
in  Divine  Service,  the  Queen  proceeds  to  remind 
the  Metropolitan  that  she  had  authorised  a  Latin 
translation  of  the  Prayer-Book  '  in  such  sort  as  ye 
shall  consider  to  be  most  meet  to  be  used,'  '  so  that 
our  good  purpose  in  the  said  translation  be  not 


WAS  TEANSLATED  INTO  LATIN  107 

frustrated,  nor  be  corruptly  abused,  contrary  to  the 
effect  of  our  meaning.' 1 

It  is  probable  that  on  the  issue  of  these  Letters 
Patent  Cecil  asked  Parker  for  a  note  of  the 
differences  between  Edward's  second  Book  and  the 
Queen's,  and  also  for  the  clause  of  the  Act  of 
Uniformity  under  which  the  Queen  claimed  power 
to  increase  the  differences ;  or  Parker  may  have 
sent  the  information  spontaneously.  The  two  men 
were  certainly  in  correspondence  on  the  subject, 
for  Parker  writes  to  Cecil  on  another  occasion : — 

First,  I  said,  as  her  Highness  talked  with  me  once 
or  twice  on  that  point,  and  signified  that  there  was  one 
proviso  in  the  Act  of  the  Uniformity  of  Common 
Prayer,  that  by  law  is  granted  unto  her,  that  if  there 
be  any  contempt  or  irreverence  used  in  the  ceremonies 
or  rites  of  the  Church  by  the  misusing  of  the  orders 
appointed  in  the  Book,  the  Queen's  Majesty  may,  by  the 
advice  of  her  Commissioners,  or  Metropolitan,  ordain  and 
publish  such  further  ceremonies  or  rites  as  may  be  most 
for  the  reverence  of  Christ's  holy  mysteries  and  sacra- 
ments ;  and  but  for  which  law  her  Highness  would  not 
have  agreed  to  divers  orders  in  the  Book.2 

When  the  Latin  Act  of  Uniformity  was  first 
printed  and  prefixed  to  the  Prayer-Book  there  is 
no  evidence  in  my  possession  to  show.  We  may 
assume  that  one  of  the  Queen's  printers  would  not 
have  prefixed  it  to  an  edition  of  the  Latin  Prayer- 
Book  in  1572  without  a  word  of  explanation  if  it 
had  not  been  then  a  recognised  document.  But 

1  Parker  Correspondence,  p.  183.  *  Ibid.  p.  375. 


108  LATIN  ACT  OP  UNIFOKMITY 

these  are  questions  with  which  I  have  nothing  to  do. 
It  is  enough  for  ine  that  there  was  a  Latin  version 
of  the  Act  in  1560,  and  that  the  Archbishop  of 
Canterbury  sent  to  the  Queen's  Minister  the  crucial 
Ornaments  clause  together  with  a  note  of  the 
differences  at  that  time  between  Edward's  second 
Prayer-Book  and  the  Queen's,  thus  fixing  the  date. 

In  deference  to  Dr.  Gibson's  confident  claim 
to  superior  knowledge  and  wider  researches  among 
original  authorities  in  the  British  Museum,  I 
dropt,  in  my  examination  before  the  Eoyal  Com- 
mission, my  argument  from  the  'quemadmodum 
mos  erat '  of  the  Ornaments  clause  in  the  Latin 
Act  of  Uniformity.  Having  now  established  my 
accuracy  on  this,  as  on  other  points,  against  Dr, 
Gibson,  I  resume  my  argument  from '  quemadmodum 
mos  erat.'  Words  which  received  the  imprimatur 
of  Parker  and  Cecil  in  the  year  1560  may  be  con- 
sidered as  contemporary  with  the  Latin  Book  of 
that  year,  and  also  as  authorised  and  legal.  So 
much  for  Dr.  Gibson's  positive  assertion  to  the 
contrary  on  all  three  points.  Nor  is  he  accurate  in 
saying  that  he  '  tested  the  original  copy  [of  the 
Latin  Prayer-Book]  in  the  British  Museum.'  I 
presume  Dr.  Gibson  meant  the  original  impression, 
which  is  non-existent.  The  original  impression 
is  that  of  1559,  of  which  there  is  not  a  copy  in  the 
British  Museum. 

Let  us  now  compare  Elizabeth's   Ornaments 
Rubric  with  the  contemporary  Latin  version  of  the 


DECIDES  MEANING  OF  SECOND  YEAR       109 

Act  to   which  the   Eubric   expressly  refers.     The 
Eubric  says : — 

And  here  is  to  be  noted  that  the  Minister  at  the  time 
of  the  Communion  and  at  all  other  times  in  his  ministra- 
tion shall  use  such  ornaments  in  the  church  as  were  in 
use  by  authority  of  Parliament  in  the  second  year  of  the 
reign  of  King  Edward  VI.  according  to  the  Act  set  in  the 
beginning  of  this  Book. 

The  corresponding  words  in  the  contemporary 
Latin  version  are  : — 

Provisum  atque  statutum  sit,  quod  talia  ecclesiastica 
ornamenta  et  ministrorum  eiusdem  conservabuntur,  et 
usui  subservient,  quemadmodum  mos  erat  in  hac  Ecclesia 
Anglicana  ex  auctoritate  Parliamenti  in  anno  secundo 
Eegis  Edwardi  6. 

Here,  then,  we  have  an  authoritative  explana- 
tion of  what  both  Act  and  Eubric  prescribe — 
namely,  the  ritual  usage  of  Edward's  second  year. 
I  respectfully  repeat,  therefore,  the  words  which 
offended  Dr.  Gibson.  *  The  fatal  quemadmodum 
mos  erat '  proves  that  '  the  second  year '  refers  to 
the  usage  of  that  year,  not  to  any  Act  of  Parlia- 
ment passed  in  that  year.  The  ceremonial  legalised 
by  Elizabeth's  Act  of  Uniformity  was  to  be  c  accord- 
ing to  the  custom  of  the  second  year  of  King 
Edward  VI.'  No  ingenuity  can  make  that  mean 
any  ceremonial  prescribed  by  a  book  not  published 
in  the  second  year,  and  not  to  come  into  legal  use 
till  the  lapse  of  some  months  in  the  third  year. 
I  believe,  indeed,  that  Edward's  first  Prayer-Book 


110       FIRST  PRAYER-BOOK  NO  DIRECTORY 

made  no  change,  and  was  intended  to  make  none, 
in  the  ceremonial  of  public  worship.  So  that  the 
question  of  the  second  year  is  in  reality  literary 
rather  than  liturgical.  I  may  have  occasion  to 
touch  upon  this  point  at  a  later  stage  of  my  argu- 
ment. I  proceed  now  to  give  further  reasons  why 
the  Ornaments  Kubric  cannot  refer  to  Edward's 
first  Book  and  its  prescriptions. 


CHAPTEK  X 

REASONS  WHY  THE  ROYAL  ASSENT  COULD  NOT  HAVE 
BEEN  GIVEN  TO  THE  FIRST  ACT  OF  UNIFORMITY  IN 
EDWARD'S  SECOND  YEAR 

IT  was  conceded  by  the  Court  of  Arches  and  by 
the  Judicial  Committee  in  1857  that  if  it  could  be 
shown  that  the  first  Act  of  Uniformity  did  not 
receive  the  Koyal  Assent  before  the  end  of  the 
second  year  it  could  not  be  covered  by  the  Orna- 
ments Rubric  or  Uniformity  Act  of  1559,  from 
which  it  necessarily  follows  that  that  Eubric  and 
Act  cannot  refer  to  the  Prayer-Book  of  1549.  But 
if  the  first  Act  of  Uniformity  received  the  Eoyal 
Assent  before  the  end  of  the  second  year,  it  must 
have  been  given  by  Eoyal  Commission.  That  is 
unquestionable  and  unquestioned.  Now  assent  by 
Eoyal  Commission  was  at  that  time,  as  I  have 
shown  above  (p.  80),  a  very  formal  and  stately 
ceremony,  and  required  adequate  notice  to  be  given 
to  the  three  branches  of  the  Legislature.  It  is, 
I  submit,  past  belief  that  so  august  a  ceremony 
could  have  taken  place  in  the  three  or  four  days 
available  before  the  end  of  the  second  year  without 
a  trace  of  it  remaining  on  the  page  of  history. 


112          EOYAL  ASSENT  TO  PRAYER-BOOK 

And  not  less  incredible  is  it,  as  I  have  already 
observed,  that  the  King,  who  was  fond  of  pageantry, 
should  have  taken  no  notice  of  it  in  his  Journal. 

But  we  are  not  left  to  inference,  however  plain 
and  irresistible,  in  this  matter.  There  is  clear  proof 
that  the  first  Act  of  Uniformity  could  not  have 
received  the  Eoyal  Assent  in  the  second  year— 
namely,  that  the  Eoyal  Assent  put  an  immediate 
end  to  the  session  unless  provision  was  made  to 
the  contrary.  This  rule  was  referred  to  at  the 
Lambeth  Hearing,  but  Sir  Lewis  Dibdin  (now  Dean 
of  the  Arches)  brushed  it  aside  as  '  an  old  supersti- 
tion.' On  the  contrary,  it  was  a  living  constitu- 
tional doctrine  for  more  than  a  century  after 
Edward  VI. 's  death.  I  have  given  the  follow- 
ing instances  in  my  '  Eeformation  Settlement ' 
(pp.  617-8).  After  the  Eoyal  Assent  was  given  to 
1  Car.  I.  c.  7  we  read  as  follows  : — 

This  session  of  Parliament  (by  reason  of  the  increase 
of  sickness  and  other  inconveniences  of  the  season,  re- 
quiring a  speedy  adjournment)  nevertheless  shall  not 
determine  by  his  Majesty's  Eoyal  Assent  to  this  and  some 
other  Acts.1 

At  the  opening  of  the  first  Parliament  after  the 
Eestoration  an  Act  was  passed  to  undo  the  Parlia- 
mentary irregularities  of  the  Commonwealth.  The 
Eoyal  Assent  was  necessary  at  once,  and  it  was 
given  with  the  following  proviso  : — 

1  Statutes  at  Large,  iii.  120. 


IMPOSSIBLE  IN  SECOND  YEAE  113 

Provided  always,  and  it  is  hereby  enacted,  that  his 
Majesty's  Eoyal  Assent  to  this  Bill  shall  not  determine 
this  present  session  of  Parliament.1 

Again,  if  the  reader  will  look  at  22  &  23  Car.  II. 
c.  1,  he  will  find  that  the  Eoyal  Assent  was  given 
in  the  beginning  of  the  session  to  '  an  Act  to 
prevent  malicious  maiming  and  wounding ' ;  and 
to  prevent  the  session  from  being  closed  thereby 
there  follows  the  usual  proviso  : — 

Provided  always,  and  it  is  hereby  declared  and 
enacted,  that  his  Majesty's  Eoyal  Assent  to  this  Bill 
shall  not  determine  this  session  of  Parliament.2 

I  have  not  pursued  the  inquiry  further.  It  is 
enough  for  my  purpose  to  have  shown  that  from 
Henry  VIlI.'s  time  to  Charles  II.'s  it  was  the 
invariable  rule  that  the  Eoyal  Assent  put  an  end 
to  the  session  unless  Parliament  made  provision 
to  the  contrary.  But  the  Parliamentary  session 
under  consideration  did  not  end  till  March  14  of 
Edward's  third  year,  and  there  is  no  trace  in  the 
records  of  Parliament  or  elsewhere  of  such  a 
proviso  or  of  any  Eoyal  Assent  by  Commission. 

In  the  course  of  my  examination  by  the  Eoyal 
Commission  Sir  Edward  Clarke  asked  me,  *  What 
authority  have  you  for  saying  that  the  Eoyal 
Assent  was  not  given  until  the  third  year  ? '  I 
answered :  ( Briefly  this :  In  the  first  place,  the 
Eoyal  Assent  determined  Parliament  [i.e.  the 


1  12  Car.  II.  c.  1.     (Statutes  at  Large,  iii.  143.) 

2  Statutes  at  Large,  iii.  327. 


I 


114  PKEJUDICE   VEESUS  EVIDENCE 

session  of  Parliament] ;  when  it  was  given,  Parlia- 
ment came  to  an  end.'  '  Oh,  no,'  answered  Sir 
Edward,  and  he  argued  the  point  till  I  produced 
my  evidence,  which  is  conclusive. 

We  have  now  got  so  far  as  this :  The  Eoyal 
Assent  to  the  first  Act  of  Uniformity  in  the  second 
year  could  only  have  been  given  by  Commission. 
There  were  only  three  or  four  days  at  the  most  to 
do  it  in,  and  it  is  certain  that  it  was  not  done.  In 
the  court  of  reason,  therefore,  the  case  is  ended. 
But  prejudice  is  often  impervious  to  reason,  and  it 
is  so  here.  The  Judicial  Committee  said  in  1857 
that  '  there  seems  no  reason  to  doubt  that  the  Act 
in  question  received  the  Eoyal  Assent  in  the  second 
year  of  Edward  VI.'  And  this  is  considered  the 
last  word  on  the  subject  by  the  great  mass  of 
lawyers  and  by  the  public  in  general.  That  view 
was  pressed  upon  me  confidently  by  the  legal 
members  of  the  Eoyal  Commission.  I  asked  if  the 
Court  had  all  the  facts  before  it  when  it  uttered  its 
dictum,  and  I  was  assured  that  it  had.  I  have 
since  gone  over  the  pleadings  in  that  case,  and  I  find 
that  the  Court  had  by  no  means  got  all  the  facts 
before  it.  Their  Lordships  do  not  seem  to  have 
troubled  themselves  to  inquire  how  the  Eoyal  Assent 
was  given  in  the  second  year — whether  personally 
or  by  Commission — nor  do  they  seem  to  have  been 
aware  that  the  Eoyal  Assent  determined  the 
session.  We  are  thus  dealing  with  a  case  where 
ordinary  evidence  does  not  avail,  because  what  we 


AN  IEEELEVANT  PRECEDENT      115 

have  opposed  to  us  is  an  inveterate  prejudice, 
which  can  only  be  overthrown  by  the  impact  of 
cumulative  facts.  I  proceed,  therefore,  to  meet 
the  remaining  objections  to  my  contention  that 
the  first  Act  of  Uniformity  did  not  receive  the 
Eoyal  Assent  in  the  second  year  of  Edward  VI., 
from  which  it  follows  that  nothing  sanctioned  by 
it  can  have  had  the  '  authority  of  Parliament '  in 
that  year. 

Both  at  the  Lambeth  Hearing  and  before  the 
Eoyal  Commission  Sir  Lewis  Dibdin  made  a  great 
point  of  1  Mary,  Stat.  3,  c.  10,  an  'Act  for  the 
Eepeal  of  statute  made  for  uniting  the  parishes  of 
Onger  and  Grenestede  in  the  Countie  of  Essex.' 
This  statute,  said  Sir  Lewis  Dibdin  in  his  cross- 
examination  of  me  before  the  Eoyal  Commission, 
is  '  really  identically  in  the  same  form  as  the 
Ornaments  Eubric.'  A  discussion  on  that  point 
followed  between  him  and  me,  which  I  subjoin 
from  the  report  of  the  official  shorthand  writer  : — 

It  says  '  an  Act  was  made  and  ordained  by  authority 
of  Parliament  in  the  same  second  year.'  That  refers  to 
an  Act  of  Parliament  which  was  read  a  third  time  in 
the  third  year,  so  that  it  was  not  even  a  complete  Bill 
in  the  second  year.  It  was  read  a  third  time  and  re- 
ceived the  Koyal  Assent  in  the  third  year.  I  point  to 
that  as  really  a  precedent  for  the  Ornaments  Rubric  form. 
I  have  read  your  book  and  I  gather  that  you  do  not  take 
that  view  ? — No,  I  still  rely  upon  the  word  '  made.'  I  say 
that  Acts  of  Parliament  are  made  by  Parliament,  but  do 
not  become  operative  until  they  receive  the  Royal  Assent. 

I  2 


116  1  MAEY,  3,  C.  10,  IRRELEVANT 

8624.  (Mr.  Prothero.)    Where  does  the  word  '  made ' 
occur  ?     It  does  not  occur  in  the  rubric  ? — No,  it  does 
not. 

8625.  (Sir  Lewis   Dibdin.)    You   have   not   got   the 
words  before  you.     The  words  are  'An  Act  was  made 
and  ordained  by  authority  of    Parliament   in  the  same 
second  year,'  and,  as  I  have  told  you,  that  Bill  passed  the 
third  time  in  the  third  year  ? — Yes,  it  passed  the  first  day 
of  the  third  year. 

8626.  Still  the  third  reading  was  in  the  third  year  ? — 
Yes. 

8627.  I  gather  from  your  book  that  you  do  not  think 
much  of  that  as  a  precedent.     I  think  that  is  the  Act 
which  you   suggest   was   drawn   by  the   village   school- 
master ? — No,   pardon   me ;   the  suggestion  is   that   the 
Act  is  based  upon  a  petition  from  the  parishioners,  and 
Parliament  quotes  the  petition  as  the  reason  for  the  Act. 

8628.  But  what  do  you  mean  by  that ;  the  Act  was 
in  petition  form,  was  it  not  ?     Why  do  you  say  that  they 
quote  the  petition  ? — The  parishioners  of  the  two  parishes 
make  a  complaint  that  the  Act  was  passed  to  their  pre- 
judice,  iniquitously   they   say,   and   put   them   to   great 
inconvenience,  and   they  beg   Parliament   and   beg  the 
Queen  to  dissolve  the  union  of  the  two  parishes,  and  the 
Act  quotes  the  petition  of  the  parishioners  and  enacts 
accordingly. 

8629.  But  you  are  aware,  are  you  not,  that  the  whole 
of  that  Act,  and  a  great  many  other  Acts  in  the  Statute 
Book,  is  in  the  form  of  a  petition  ? — No. 

8630.  Not  only  what  you  say  is  quoted,  but  the  whole 
thing  ? — The  whole  Act  is  not  in  the  form  of  a  petition. 

8631.  Yes  it  is. — It  enacts. 

8632.  You  are  aware,  are  you  not,  that  until  a  com- 
paratively late  period,  all  Acts  of  Parliament,  and  at  the 
time  we  are  speaking  of,  a  great  many  Acts  of  Parlia- 
ment were  made  in  the  form  of  a  petition,  and  the  only 


1  MARY,  3,  C.  10,  IEEELEVANT  117 

evidence  of  the  Royal  Assent  was  the  La  Heine  le  veult, 
or  the  form  of  assent  written  at  the  end,  and  they  appear 
in  the  Statute  Books  still  in  petition  form  ? — Yes. 

8633.  And   that   is   one   of    them,   is  it  not  ? — Yes, 
undoubtedly,  but  I   think  if  you  read  the  first  part  of 
the  Act,  the  preamble,  really  it  is  the  wording  of  the 
petitioners.     The  Act  in  the  ordinary  form  of  a  Statute 
would  not  make  the  very  grave  and  serious  accusations 
against  the  man  who  '  corruptly '  got  the  parishes  united. 

8634.  Surely  the  whole  Act,  preamble  and  everything 
else,  is  the  petition  of  the  people.   You  suggest — it  does  not 
sound  to  me  a  very  likely  suggestion — that  it  was  drawn  by 
the  village  schoolmaster  ? — Not  the  Act,  but  the  petition. 

8635.  I  put  it  to  you  that  the  whole  Act  is  the  peti- 
tion ? — I  think  not.     It  says  '  Be  it  enacted.' 

8636.  Let  us  look  at   it,   because  this  is   really   in 
identical  form  with  the  Ornaments  Eubric.     It  is  Mary, 
Statute   3,   chapter  10.     It   begins   '  Lamentably   com- 
plaining, shewen  unto  your  Highness  your  obedient  and 
faithful  subjects,'  quite  a  familiar  beginning  ? — Yes. 

8637.  Then  follow  the  words  I  have  quoted  which 
I  am   relying   upon.      Then  the   operative  part   of   the 
Statute  is  still  the  petition.     '  It  may,  therefore,  please 
your  most  excellent  Highness.     That  it  may  be  enacted 
by  the  same  your  Highness  with  the  assent  of  the  Lords 
spiritual  and  temporal  and  the  Commons  in  this  present 
Parliament   assembled   and   by   authority   of   the   same, 
that ' — Then  the  next  sentence  is  '  And  that ' — still  the 
petition,   and    so    on    right    through    the   Act.      From 
beginning  to  end  it  is  a  petition  in  absolutely  familiar 
form,  of  course  ? — But  do  you  suppose  that  Parliament 
would   say   '  That  where   by   the    sinister    Labour  and 
Procurement   of    one   [who  was  patron   of  the    livings 
and   M.P.  for  the   county]   .    .    .   inordinately    seeking 
his  private  lucre  and  profit '  ?     Surely  that  is  the  petition 
of  the  parishioners. 


118  1   MABY,   3,  C.   10,   IREBLEVANT 

8638.  Yes,  it  is  a  part  of  the  petition.     The  whole 
thing  is  the  petition  ? — Surely  not. 

8639.  I  think  I  can  make  this  clearer  if  I  read  again 
from  Hardcastle,  who  is  the  text  writer  on  this  subject. 
He  says  at  page  46  :  '  Evidence  of  the  Royal  Assent  other 
than  the  words  of  enactment  was  never  required  as  to 
the   earlier    Statutes,   public    or    private,    and    from    3 
Edward  I.  to  Henry  VI.  there  is  no  mention  of  the  Eoyal 
Assent  on  public  or  private  Acts  other  than  the  words  of 
enactment.     The  importance  of  this  question  with  refer- 
ence to  old  Acts  lay  in  the  fact  that  as  the  Act  was  in 
the  form  of  a  petition  unless  it  was  endorsed  Le  JRoi  le 
veult  or  Soit  fait  comme  il  est  desire,  the  sole  evidence  of 
Royal  Assent  was  the  appearance  of  the  Bill  on  record.' 
And  we  know  (Sir  Francis  Jeune  will  bear  me  out)  that 
there  are  hundreds  of  Acts  on  the  Statute  Book,  of  which 
the  first  Act  of   Uniformity  itself   is  one,  which  so  far 
as   anything   appears    on    the   Statute   Book   are   mere 
petitions  ? — I  do  not  assent. 

8640.  I  will  not  ask  you  any  more  questions  about  it 
because  we  are  not  quite  agreed  amongst  ourselves  on  the 
Commission  what  the  form  of  it  is. 

The  fact  is  that  Sir  Edward  Clarke  joined  in 
the  discussion  at  this  point,  and  took  my  side 
against  Sir  Lewis  Dibdin,  but  by  desire  of  the 
Chairman  this  little  episode  was  not  reported. 
Without  going  now  into  the  subject  of  how  far 
Acts  of  Parliament  were  all  then  in  the  form  of  a 
petition,  the  question  does  not  arise  here.  The 
petitioning  form  of  Acts  of  Parliament  was  ad- 
dressed to  the  Sovereign  by  Parliament.  But  the 
petition  in  the  Act  under  discussion  was  avowedly 
addressed  to  the  Queen  by  the  aggrieved  parishioners 


1   MAEY,  3,  C.  10,  IERELEVANT  119 

of  the  united  parishes.  Let  me  quote  as  much  of 
the  petition  as  proves  this  indubitably,  together 
with  my  comments  in  my  Reformation  Settlement, 
which  Sir  Lewis  Dibdin  criticised  with  courtesy  :— 

Lamentably  complaining  shewen  unto  yor.  Highness 
yor.  obedient  &  faithful  Subjects  thinhabitauntes  & 
Parishioners  of  the  Townes  &  Villages  of  Chipping  Onger 
otherwise  called  Castell  Onger  &  Grenestede  within  yor. 
Graces  Countye  of  Essexe ;  That  where  by  the  Sinister 
Labour  &  Procurement  of  one  Willyam  Moys  Esquyer, 
yor.  Graces  late  Servant  deceased,  sometime  Patrone  of 
the  Parishe  Churche  of  Onger  aforesayd,  &  one  of  the 
Burgesses  of  the  Parliament  holden  at  Westminster  in 
the  second  year  of  the  late  King  of  worthye  mernorye, 
Edward  the  Sixth  your  Highnes  Brother,  inordinately 
seeking  his  private  lucre  and  profitt,  an  Acte  was  made  & 
ordeined,  by  authoritee  of  P'liament  in  the  same  second 
year  for  a  Consolidation  &  Union  to  be  hadd  and  made 
of  the  Parish  Churches.1 

1  See  Reformation  Settlement,  p.  612.  The  Act  which  united  the 
two  parishes,  and  which  was  'repealed  in  Mary's  reign  in  response  to 
the  petition  of  the  parishioners,  was  not  enrolled  and  was  never 
printed.  I  had  some  difficulty  in  tracing  it,  and  found  a  copy  of  it  at 
last  in  Bonner's  Register,  p.  814.  It  is  entitled  '  The  copie  of  an  Act 
passed  in  the  Secunde  Session  of  the  Parliamente  holden  and  begowne 
at  Westr.  the  24th  day  of  Novembre  Anno  Rx.  Edwardi  Sexti  Secundo 
and  contynued  untill  the  14th  day  of  Marche  Anno  dicti  R.  E.  VIti 
tercio.'  This  follows  the  usual  parliamentary  nomenclature,  which 
mentions  the  period  embraced  by  the  Parliament  referred  to. 
Edward  VI.'s  second  year  is  always  quoted  in  conjunction  with  the 
third,  namely,  "  2  &  3  Edward  VI."  None  of  the  instances  quoted  by 
Sir  Lewis  Dibdin  in  his  cross-examination  of  me  is  on  all  fours  with 
the  Ornaments  Rubric.  Collier  is  accurate  in  his  history  and  phrase- 
ology when  he  writes, '  By  this  statute  [Second  Act  of  Uniformity] 
the  first  Common  Prayer  Book  authorised  by  Parliament,  in  the  second 
and  third  year  of  this  reign,  is  called  "  a  very  godly  order,  agreeable 
to  the  Word  of  God  and  the  primitive  Church,  very  comfortable  to  all 


120         WAS  THE  FIEST  UNIFORMITY  ACT 

'  The  poor  people  go  on  to  describe  the  hard- 
ships which  the  union  of  the  two  parishes  entailed 
upon  them,  hindering — among  other  things — their 
going  to  church  in  rainy  weather  on  account  of  a 
swollen  brook  that  separated  them  from  the  church 
of  the  parish  to  which  they  had  been,  without  their 
consent,  united  "  by  the  sinister  labour  and  procure- 
ment "  of  the  patron  of  the  living,  their  Parliamen- 
tary representative.  They  beg,  therefore,  that  the 
Act  which  inflicted  these  evils  upon  them  may  be 
repealed.  The  document  is  an  illiterate  petition 
to  the  Queen,  probably  drawn  up  by  the  village 
schoolmaster  or  scribe,  who  might  be  excused  for 
being  a  little  astray  in  Parliamentary  terminology 
and  dates.  The  petition  is  prefixed  to  the  repeal- 
ing Act  as  its  explanation  and  justification.' 

Undoubtedly  this  Act  is  the  nearest  instance 
that  has  been  cited  of  an  Act  receiving  the  Eoyal 
Assent  in  one  year,  yet  credited  to  the  previous 
year.  But  for  the  reasons  just  given  I  submit 
that  no  reliance  can  be  placed  upon  it.  And  it 
is  a  solitary  instance. 

The  next  argument  which  I  have  to  meet  was 
put  to  me  with  great  ability  and  ingenuity  by  Sir 
Lewis  Dibdin.1  Until  the  year  1792  the  operation 
of  Acts  of  Parliament  was  dated  from  the  first  day 
of  the  session  in  which  they  were  passed.  This 

good  people  desiring  to  live  in  Christian  conversation,  and  most  profit- 
able to  the  estate  of  this  realm."  ' — Eccles.  Hist.  v.  454. 
1  See  Appendix  A,  p.  301,  306-811. 


- 


TO  BEGIN  FEOM  A   SPECIFIC  DATE?        121 

rule,  however,  applied  only  to  '  every  Act  of  Parlia- 
ment in  which  the  commencement  thereof  is  not 
directed  to  be  from  a  specific  date.' l  The  question 
is,  Was  Edward's  first  Act  of  Uniformity  one  of 
these  exceptions  ?  Sir  Lewis  gp  ve  two  reasons 
why,  in  his  opinion,  it  was  not.  He  draws  a  dis- 
tinction between  the  Act  and  the  Prayer-Book 
which  it  sanctioned.  The  latter,  he  allows,  is 
directed  to  be  from  a  given  date,  but  not  the 
former,  because  (1)  the  Act '  required  the  church- 
wardens to  get  the  Prayer-Book  ready  against  Whit- 
sunday ' ;  (2)  that  where  copies  of  the  Prayer-Book 
could  be  obtained  before  the  compulsory  date  for 
its  use  (Whitsunday)  it  was  to  be  used  within 
three  weeks  of  its  being  so  obtained ;  (3)  that  the 
Act  released  a  certain  class  of  prisoners,  for  whose 
release,  however,  no  date  is  given  in  the  Act. 

Let  us  consider  these  arguments.  I  cannot 
admit  the  distinction  which  Sir  Lewis  Dibdin 
draws  between  the  Act  and  the  Prayer-Book.  If 
the  former  is  not  directed  to  begin  from  a  given 
date,  neither  is  the  latter.  Whitsunday  was  the 
day  named  in  the  Act  on  which  the  Prayer-Book 
was  to  come  into  universal  use,  but  it  was  to  be 
used  earlier  if  copies  could  be  obtained.  I  am 
surprised  that  Sir  Lewis  should  make  a  point  of 
the  churchwardens  being  c  required  to  get  the 
Prayer-Book  ready  against  Whitsunday.'  This 
seems  to  me  to  overthrow  his  argument.  The  Act 

1  Statutes  Bevised,  iii.  338. 


122      SEASONS  FOE  AFFIRMATIVE  ANSWER 

simply  requires  the  churchwardens  to  have  every- 
thing ready  against  the  prescribed  date.  Obviously 
it  did  not  matter  when  they  began  to  discharge 
this  duty,  provided  it  was  discharged  by  Whit- 
sunday, the  crucial  date.  Their  omission  of  this 
duty  was  penal.  And  surely  the  fact  that  copies,  if 
obtainable,  were  to  be  used  before  the  prescribed 
date  cannot  prove  that  the  Act  was  not  directed  to 
begin  from  a  given  date.  An  Act  comes  into  legal 
validity  from  the  date  on  which  it  can  be  penally 
enforced.  But  the  Uniformity  Act  of  1549  could 
not  have  been  penally  enforced  before  Whit- 
sunday of  that  year.  Therefore  I  hold  that  it  un- 
doubtedly belongs  to  the  category  of  Acts  'in 
which  the  commencement  thereof  is  '  '  directed  to 
be  from  a  specific  date.'  Surely  the  language  of 
the  Act  is  conclusive  on  that  point.  Let  me  give 
a  few  examples.  The  Act  ordains  that  all  persons 
concerned  '  shall  from  and  after  the  Feast  of 
Pentecost  next  coming  be  bounden  to  say  and  use 
the  Matins  and  Evensong,  celebration  of  the 
Lord's  Supper,  commonly  called  the  Mass,  and 
administration  of  each  of  the  Sacraments,  and  all 
their  common  and  open  prayer,' '  in  such  order  and 
form  as  is  mentioned  in  this  book,  and  none  other 
or  otherwise.'  It  goes  on  to  prescribe  penalties  for 
all  violations  of  this  order,  '  after  the  said  Feast  of 
Pentecost  next  coming.'  In  the  next  section  it 
prescribes  penalties  against  all  who  '  after  the  said 
Feast  of  Pentecost  next  coming '  shall  say  or  do, 


EEASONS  FOE  AFFIEMATIVE  ANSWEE      123 

or  incite  others  to  say  or  do,  '  anything  in  the 
derogation,  depraving,  or  despising  of  the  same 
book  or  anything  therein  contained.'  Another 
section  orders  that  copies  of  the  book  shall  be 
obtained  '  at  the  cost  and  charges  of  the  parishioners 
of  every  parish  and  Cathedral  church '  before  the 
'  Feast  of  Pentecost  next  following.' 

If  this,  and  more  to  the  same  effect,  does  not 
prescribe  a  date  for  the  commencement  of  the 
Act,  it  would  be  difficult  to  name  an  Act  which 
answers  fully  to  that  requirement.1 

But  Sir  Lewis  Dibdin's  third  argument  would, 
if  well  founded,  have  more  substance  in  it, 
namely,  that  the  Act  released,  ipso  facto,  all 
prisoners  in  confinement  for  innovations  in  Divine 
Service,  with  certain  exceptions,  yet  no  date  is 
given  for  their  release.  I  refer  the  reader  to  the  Ap- 
pendix (pp.306-311),  where  he  will  find  Sir  Lewis's 
argument  against  me  stated  with  great  ability  and 
acuteness.  I  objected  that  there  is  nothing  in  the 
enacting  part  of  the  Act  of  Uniformity  about 
pardoning  any  prisoners.  Parliament  indeed 
petitions  the  King  to  pardon  all  persons  'that 
have  offended '  in  matters  of  religion  other  than 
'  such  persons  as  now  be  and  remain  in  ward  in  the 
Tower  of  London  and  the  Fleet.'  '  That  is  an 
enactment,'  answered  Sir  Lewis ;  c  the  whole  Act 

1  Certainly  Collier,  who  was  a  most  careful  and  accurate  writer, 
had  no  doubt  on  this  point.  He  writes :  '  The  statute  sets  forth 
further :  That  if  after  the  feast  of  Pentecost  next  coming,  when  the 
Act  was  to  inure,'  &c. — Eccles.  Hist,  v.  296. 


124  WEEE  PRISONERS  RELEASED 

is  petition  ;  it  is  the  operative  part  of  the  Act.' 
With  all  respect,  I  dispute  that  assertion.  In 
a  copy  which  lies  before  me  the  preamble  of 
the  Act  covers  a  little  over  a  page ;  the  petition 
covers  less  than  three  pages;  then  follows  the 
enacting  part,  covering  more  than  four  pages. 
Immediately  after  the  petition,  on  which  Sir 
Lewis  Dibdin  relies,  the  Act  goes  on :  '  And  it  is 
ordained  and  enacted,'  and  so  it  proceeds  through 
thirteen  paragraphs,  each  beginning  '  Be  it  enacted ' 
or  *  Be  it  ordained  and  enacted,'  to  the  end  of  the 
Act.  I  submit  therefore,  with  all  deference,  that 
the  petition  for  the  release  of  the  prisoners  does 
not  belong  to  the  enacting  part  of  the  Act  and 
receives  no  answer  in  the  Act.  The  rest  of  the 
petition  is  answered  by  a  specific  enactment.  I 
have  examined  a  multitude  of  statutes  of  that 
period,  and  have  found  that  the  great  majority  of 
them  are  not  in  the  form  of  petitions,  and  that, 
moreover,  a  petition  is  not  necessarily  an  enacting 
part  of  the  Act.  If  I  may  say  so  without  great 
presumption,  it  seems  to  me  that  the  Dean  of  the 
Arches  has  pushed  his  doctrine  of  statutes  being 
in  the  form  of  petitions,  and  petitions  having 
statutory  force,  much  too  far.  I  do  not  think 
the  text-books  bear  him  out.  For  instance, 
Maxwell  is,  I  believe,  considered  a  good  authority, 
and  he  says  : — 

Originally  Bills  in  Parliament  were  mere  petitions  to 
the  King.    They  were  entered  on  the  Bolls  of  Parliament 


BY  THE  FIKST  UNIFOEMITY  ACT?         125 

with  the  King's  answer ;  and  at  the  end  of  the  session 
the  Judges  drew  up  those  records  into  statutes,  to  which 
they  gave  a  title.  In  the  execution  of  their  task  they 
occasionally  made  additions,  omissions,  and  alterations. 
But  the  practice  ceased  in  the  reign  of  Henry  VI.,  when 
Bills  in  the  form  of  statutes  without  titles  were 
introduced.1 

But,  though  '  introduced  '  without  titles,  they 
received  a  title  when  they  became  Acts,  and 
lawyers  are  agreed,  I  believe,  that  the  title  of  a 
statute  may  be  taken  to  indicate  its  contents  and 
purport.  Now  the  authorised  title  of  the  Act 
under  consideration  is  c  An  Act  for  the  Uniformity 
of  Service  and  Administration  of  the  Sacraments 
throughout  the  Eealm.'  2 

There  is  not  the  slightest  suggestion  here 
about  the  release  of  prisoners,  as  we  might  have 
expected  if  the  Act  had  any  such  intention  or 
effect,  especially  when  the  release  was,  according  to 
Sir  Lewis  Dibdin's  argument,  so  *  urgent '  that  the 
King  is  supposed  to  have  sent  a  Eoyal  Commission 
in  hot  haste  to  give  his  assent  to  the  Act  of  release 
the  moment  it  passed  through  Parliament.  The 
release  of  the  prisoners  would  thus  be  the  most 
urgent  part  of  the  Act.  Yet  the  Act  itself,  apart 
from  the  brief  petition  near  the  beginning,  breathes 
not  a  syllable  about  prisoners.  I  respectfully 
reject  therefore,  as  violent  and  non-natural,  the 

1  On  the  Interpretation  of  Statutes,  p.  49. 

2  Statutes  of  the  Eealm,  iv.  37. 


126  WEBB  PEISONEES  EELEASED 

construction  which  would  make  that  petition  ipso 
facto  an  order  of  release  for  the  prisoners  named. 

Sir  Lewis  Dibdin  argued  against  me  on  this 
point  that  the  General  Pardon  Act  of  Edward's 
third  year  '  did  not  refer  to  those  particular  persons 
who  had  committed  the  offences  '  referred  to  in  the 
Act  of  Uniformity.  '  The  two  things,'  he  said— 
i.e.  the  offences  pardoned  in  the  General  Pardon 
Act  and  those  pardoned  ex  JiypotJiesi  in  the  Act  of 
Uniformity — *  are  separate.  It  so  happened  that 
they  were  both  passed  in  the  same  session,  but  that 
is  all.'  Let  us  see. 

Parliament  petitions  in  the  Act  of  Uniformity 
that  all  persons  convicted  of  ecclesiastical  offences 
should  be  released  except  such  persons  as  were 
imprisoned  in  the  Tower  and  the  Fleet,  but  left  the 
mode  and  time  of  release  to  the  King's  discretion. 
The  General  Pardon  Act  released,  inter  alios,  every 
prisoner  convicted  of  offences  '  as  well  spiritual  as 
temporal  unto  the  14th  day  of  March,  1548 ' ;  and 
section  15  enables  archbishops  and  bishops  to  re- 
lease from  prison  any  person  convicted  and  im- 
prisoned for  an  ecclesiastical  offence.1 

Thus  we  see  that  the  General  Pardon  Act 
embraced  precisely  the  class  of  persons  on  whose 
behalf  Parliament  petitioned  in  the  Act  of  Uni- 
formity, and  under  exactly  the  same  exceptions 
demanded  in  the  petition  of  the  Act  of  Uniformity, 
namely,  prisoners  confined  in  the  Tower  and  in  the 

1  Statutes  oj  the  Realm,  iv.  pt.  i.  36. 


BY  THE  FIRST  UNIFORMITY  ACT?         127 

Fleet.     Is   it  possible   to  doubt  that  this   is   the 
answer  to  the  petition  in  the  Act  of  Uniformity  ? 

But  the  evidence  for  my  view  of  the  case  does 
not  end  there.     In  the  Lords'  *  Journals  '  there  is 
a  list  of  sixty  Acts  of  Parliament  which  received 
the  Eoyal  Assent  on  that  day,  and  among  them  is 
the  Act  of   Uniformity  and  the   General  Pardon 
Act.     When  I  stated  this  before  the  Eoyal  Com- 
mission, Sir  Lewis  Dibdin  asked,  'Are  you  referring 
to  the  printed  "  Journal  "  ? '     'I  am  referring  to 
the  printed  "  Journal ' ','  I  answered.     '  That  is  in 
George  III.'s   reign,'   he  observed.      Sir  Edward 
Clarke  then  struck  in  with  the  remark,  *  That  is 
very  much  later  indeed.'     Here  Sir  Lewis  Dibdin 
departed   a  little  from  his  usual  fairness,   which 
I   gladly   acknowledge.      The   casual  reader    will 
imagine,  from  his  slighting  reference  to  George  III.'s 
reign,  that  I  had  relied  on  some   untrustworthy 
authority,   and  that    appears    to  KaV?  been    the 
impression  made  on  so  acute  and  learned  a  mind 
as  Sir  Edward  Clarke's.  But  I  quoted  the  authentic 
and  recognised   edition  of  the  Lords'  '  Journals.' 
Sir  Lewis  Dibdin  held  that  there  is  no  date  in  the 
manuscript  lists   of  Acts  as  given  in  the  Lords' 
'  Journals.'     But  the  date  is  capable  of  proof  by 
other  evidence.   In  the  body  of  the  General  Pardon 
Act  the  date  of  its  passing  is  given  as  March  14. 
We  may  therefore  say  for  certain  that  all  the  other 
Acts  mentioned  in  the   lists  received  the  Koyal 
Assent  on  the  same  day.    It  is  for  those  who 


128  PETITION  IN  UNIFOKMITY  ACT 

dispute  this  to  give  some  valid  evidence  for  their 
scepticism.  The  burden  of  proof  is  on  them,  and 
they  offer  no  proof  at  all. 

I  now  claim  to  have  proved  that  the  petition 
in  the  Act  of  Uniformity  was  no  part  of  the  enact- 
ing portion  of  the  statute,  and  that  the  release  of 
the  prisoners  there  referred  to  was  effected  by 
another  statute — namely,  the  General  Pardon  Act. 
We  have  thus  got  rid  of  the  only  plausible  reason 
for  doubting  that  the  commencement  of  the  Act  of 
Uniformity  was  directed  to  be  from  a  specific  date. 
It  is  also  certain  that  the  Act  of  Uniformity  re- 
ceived the  Eoyal  Assent  on  March  14  of  Edward's 
third  year,  unless  some  decisive  evidence  is  pro- 
duced to  the  contrary.  Those  who  have  so 
strenuously  denied  that  the  Eoyal  Assent  was  given 
to  the  Act  of  Uniformity  on  the  above  date  have 
strangely  forgotten  that  they  are  bound  to  support 
their  denial  by  some  kind  of  positive  evidence. 
This  they  have  never  attempted. 

Let  me  quote  here  an  authority,  of  whom  Sir 
Lewis  Dibdin  made  much  use  when  he  could 
appeal  to  him  against  my  argument.  In  the  very 
book1  on  which  Sir  Lewis  relied  against  me  on 
one  particular  point,  Dr.  Gee  says,  in  reference  to 
Sandys' s  famous  explanation  of  the  Ornaments 
Kubric  : — 

An  entirely  different  view  of  the  '  second  year '  has 
now  to  be  discussed. 

1   The  Elizabethan  Prayer-Book,  p.  111. 


NO  PAET  OF  THE  ENACTMENT  129 

According  to  this,  the  words  refer  to  the  year  1549, 
and  the  ornaments  specified  in  Edward's  first  Prayer- 
Book.  This  interpretation  has  the  merit  of  the  sim- 
plicity and  directness  which  we  might  naturally  expect 
in  any  reference  of  an  Act  of  Parliament.  It  sends  us 
back  to  a  definite  standard,  and  not  to  the  highly  contro- 
versial discussion  of  what  the  Injunctions  of  1547  actually 
made  legal.  Moreover,  the  Prayer-Book  of  1549  was 
certainly  established  '  by  authority  of  Parliament.' 

At  first  sight,  however,  it  is  a  fatal  objection  to  this 
view  that  the  Book  of  1549  was  finally  authorised  in  the 
third  and  not  in  the  second  year  of  Edward,  since  the 
Koyal  Assent  was  given  in  March  1549.  The  Parliament 
in  question  began  to  sit,  after  prorogation,  on  November  4, 
1548.  Any  Act,  therefore,  of  the  session  1548-49  would 
.be  referred  to  in  legal  language  as  an  Act  of  2  &  3 
Edward  VI.  In  point  of  fact,  Acts  of  that  session  are 
usually  quoted  as  Acts  of  2  &  3  Edward  VI.1  It  would 
also  be  equally  in  order  to  refer  to  them  as  Acts  '  made 
in  the  Parliament  holden  upon  prorogation  at  West- 
minster, the  4th  day  of  November,  in  the  second  year  of 
the  reign.'  But,  in  any  case,  to  describe  the  Act  of  Unifor- 
mity of  1549  as  an  Act  of  the  second  year  is  irregular. 

1  In  a  footnote  Dr.  Gee  gives  the  two  following  illustrations : 
'  Thus  in  1  Eliz.  c.  9,  "  Whereas  at  a  Parliament  holden  at  West- 
minster upon  prorogation,  the  second  and  third  years  of  the  reign  of 
King  Edward  the  VI."  ;  in  5  Eliz.  o.  8.  "  One  other  Act  made  in  the 
second  and  third  year  of  the  reign  of  our  late  sovereign  lord  King 
Edward  the  VI."  These  instances  are  normal,  and  are  specially 
selected  as  being  fairly  contemporary  with  the  proviso '  in  the 
Ornaments  Rubric. 


CHAPTEE  XI 

TO   WHAT   DOES    '  THE   AUTHORITY   OF   PARLIAMENT  '    IN 
THE   OENAMENTS   RUBRIC   REFER? 

IF,  as  I  contend,  the  Ornaments  Rubric  does  not 
refer  to  Edward's  first  Prayer-Book,  to  what  does 
it  refer?  I  answer,  to  the  Order  of  the  Com- 
munion. But  did  the  Order  of  the  Communion 
possess  the  authority  of  Parliament  ?  I  maintain 
that  it  did;  but  my  view  was  strenuously  repu- 
diated at  my  examination  by  the  Royal  Commis- 
sion, especially  by  Sir  Lewis  Dibdin  and  Dr. 
Gibson.  I  have  re-examined  the  question  since 
then  with  the  result  that  I  find  my  view  confirmed, 
and  I  now  proceed  to  give  my  evidence.  For  the 
convenience  of  the  reader  I  will  quote  now  from 
the  official  report  as  much  of  my  evidence  as  will 
suffice  to  exhibit  my  own  view  and  that  of  my 
cross-examiners  respectively.  I  began  : — 

I  come  to  the  ornaments  rubric,  upon  which  everything 
hangs.  I  need  not  read  it,  of  course,  because  you  are  all 
familiar  with  the  ornaments  rubric,  but  I  want  to  point 
out  that  the  ornaments  rubric  of  Elizabeth  places  the 
question  of  the  'second  year,'  in  my  humble  opinion, 
beyond  any  possibility  of  doubt.  It  says  :  '  And  here  is 
to  be  noted  that  the  minister  at  the  time  of  the  Com- 


WHAT  THE  ELIZABETHAN  EUBEIC  SAYS     131 

munion,  and  at  all  other  times  in  his  ministration,  shall 
use  such  ornaments  in  the  church  as  were  in  use  by 
the  authority  of  Parliament  in  the  second  year  of  the 
reign  of  King  Edward  VI.,  according  to  the  Act  of  Parlia- 
ment set  in  the  beginning  of  this  book.'  Now  what  that 
rubric  states  is  that  '  such  ornaments,'  not  '  as  were 
authorised '  simply,  but  '  such  ornaments  as  were  in  use 
by  authority  of  Parliament  in  the  second  year  of  the 
reign  of  King  Edward  VI.,'  shall  still  be  used.  It  is 
beyond  all  possibility  of  doubt  that  the  prescriptions  of 
the  First  Prayer-Book  were  not  in  legal  use  in  the  second 
year  at  all.  The  Prayer-Book  itself  was  not  a  legal  docu- 
ment until  the  second  month  of  the  third  year,  and  conse- 
quently anything  prescribed  by  it  could  not  be  spoken  of 
in  the  Ornaments  Rubric  of  Elizabeth  as  a  thing  that  was 
'  in  use  by  authority  of  Parliament  in  the  second  year  of 
the  reign  of  King  Edward  VI.'  The  Ornaments  Rubric 
of  Elizabeth,  therefore,  cannot  cover  the  ceremonial  usage 
of  Edward's  second  regnal  year,  if  we  are  to  restrict  it 
simply  to  the  ornaments  prescribed  by  the  First  Prayer- 
Book.  It  must  refer  to  what  was  in  use  before  the 
First  Prayer-Book  was  authorised  by  Act  of  Parliament, 
and  consequently  so  far  as  I  understand  the  matter,  it 
must  refer  to  the  ceremonial  in  use  under  the  Order  of 
the  Communion,  which,  I  contend,  had  the  authority  of 
Parliament  in  the  second  year. 

8423.  When  was  that  authority  given,  in  your  view  ? — 
It  was  given  when  the  Order  of  Communion  came  forth 
first   by  the  Proclamation   of   King  Edward,  which,  as 
I  understand  it,   relied   upon   the  Act   authorising   the 
administration  of  the  Holy  Communion  in  both  kinds. 

8424.  Will  you  give  the  date?— March,  1548. 

8425.  (Sir  Lewis  Dibdin.)    That  is  the  date  of   the 
imprint  ? — Yes.     '  Imprinted  at  London  the  VIII  day  of 
March  in  the  second  year  of  the  reign  of  our  Sovereign 
Lord   King   Edward    the    Sixth,    by   Richard   Grafton, 

K  2 


132     HAD  THE  OEDER  OF  THE  COMMUNION 

printer  to  his  most  Eoyal  Majesty,   in  the  year  of  our 
Lord  mdxlviii.' 

8426.  That  is  the   date  of   the  Proclamation  ? — No, 
that  is  the  date  of  the  publication  of  the  Order  of  the 
Communion.     I  have   not   got   the   precise  date  of  the 
Proclamation  here,  but  it  was  almost  at  the  same  time  as 
the  publication  of  the  Order  of  the  Communion.     I  think 
the  Proclamation  came  forth  immediately  afterwards. 

8427.  Immediately  before,   you  mean? — Not  before 
the  publication  of  the  book,  did  it  ? 

8428.  Surely  ?— The  book  was  published  on  the  8th  of 
March,  1548,  and  I  think  immediately  afterwards  it  was 
issued,   with  the   sanction   of    the   Eoyal   Proclamation 
which  claimed  expressly  the   authority   of    the  Act   of 
Parliament,   and   referred   to   '  the   Order   of   the  Com- 
munion '  as  '  such  form  and  manner  as  hereafter  by  our 
authority  with  the  advice  before  mentioned  is  set  forth 
and  declared.'     It  would  be  contemporaneous  anyhow. 

8429.  That  is  stated  on  page  653  of  your  book,  is  it 
not  ? — Yes. 

8430.  And  the  statement  seems  to  be  that   'it  was 
issued  under  the  sanction  of  a  Eoyal  Proclamation,  which 
claimed  expressly  the  authority  of  the  Act  of  Parliament, 
and  referred  to  the  "  Order  of  the  Communion  "  as  "  such 
form  and  manner  as  hereafter,  by  our  authority  with  the 
advice  before  mentioned,  is  set  forth  and  declared." 

8431.  That  is  in  inverted  commas ;  is  that  right  ?     Is 
it  not  quite  clear  from  the  Proclamation  that  '  the  advice 
before  mentioned  '  is  that  of  the  Lord  Protector,  and  not 
the  advice  of  Parliament  at  all  ? — I  do  not  think  so. 

8432.  Now  we  may  look  at  that.     Here  is  the  Procla- 
mation :  '  Edward,  by  the  Grace  of  God  King  of  England ' 
— then  follows  his  titles.     '  To  all  and  singular  our  loving 
subjects,  greeting :  for  so  much  as  in  our  High  Court  of 
Parliament  lately  holden  at  Westminster,  it  was  by  us, 
with  the  consent  of  the  Lords  spiritual  and  temporal,  and 


THE  AUTHOEITY  OF  PAELIAMENT?        133 

Commons  there  assembled,  most  godly  and  agreeably  to 
Christ's  Holy  Institution  enacted,  that  the  most  blessed 
Sacrament  of  the  Body  and  Blood  of  our  Saviour  Christ, 
should  from  henceforth  be  commonly  delivered  and  mini- 
stered unto  all  persons,  within  our  Realm  of  England  and 
Ireland,  and  other  our  dominions  under  both  kinds,  that 
is  to  say,  of  bread  and  wine  (except  necessity  otherwise 
require)  lest  every  man  phantasying  and  devising  a  sundry 
way  by  himself,  in  the  use  of  this  most  Blessed  Sacrament 
of  unity,  there  might  thereby  arise  any  unseemly  and 
ungodly  diversity :  Our  pleasure  is,  by  the  advice  of  our 
most  dear  uncle  the  Duke  of  Somerset,  Governor  of  our 
person,  and  Protector  of  our  Realms,  Dominions,  and 
Subjects,  and  other  of  our  Privy  Council,  that  the  said 
blessed  Sacrament  be  ministered  unto  our  people,  only 
after  such  form  and  manner  as  hereafter,  by  our  authority, 
with  the  advice  before  mentioned,  is  set  forth  and  de- 
clared.' Surely  it  is  perfectly  clear  that  the  advice  is  the 
advice  of  the  Lord  Protector,  and  the  consent  of  Parlia- 
ment, which  has  been  rehearsed  in  the  earlier  part  of  that 
Proclamation,  has  to  do  solely  with  the  fact  of  Communion 
in  both  kinds  and  has  nothing  to  do  with  the  service  at 
all.  In  other  words,  is  it  not  a  mistake  to  say  as  you  do, 
on  page  653,  that  '  the  advice  before  mentioned '  means 
the  advice  of  Parliament  ? — But  it  says  by  the  advice  of 
the  Lord  Protector  and  the  Privy  Council,  and  they  were 
the  executors  of  the  Act  of  Parliament ;  it  was  their 
function  to  put  the  Act  of  Parliament  into  force.  As 
I  understand  it,  the  King  says,  by  the  advice  of  his  uncle 
the  Lord  Protector  and  the  Privy  Council. 

8433.  Yes,  that  is  what  he  says,  not  of  the  Act  of 
Parliament  ? — No,  but  he  refers  to  the  Act  of  Parliament. 

8434.  (Chairman.)  Will  you  state  what  Act  of  Parlia- 
ment?— The  Act  which   authorised  the  Communion  in 
both  kinds. 

8435.  What  is  the  date  of  the  Act?— 1  Edward  VI. 


134    HAD  THE  OEDER  OF  THE  COMMUNION 

Chapter  1.  If  I  may  venture  to  do  so,  I  should  like  to 
read  the  next  paragraph  in  my  book  in  order  to  explain 
my  meaning  :  '  In  addition  to  this  Proclamation  enjoin- 
ing the  general  use  of  "the  Order  of  the  Communion" 
the  Privy  Council  sent  to  every  bishop,  together  with 
the  copies  of  the  book,  a  circular  letter  enforcing 
its  use.' 

8436.  (Sir  Lewis  Dibdin.)  Before  you  go  to  that  I 
should  like  to  finish  this  question.     Your  book  says  dis- 
tinctly that  this  form  was  put  out  '  by  our  authority  with 
the   advice   before   mentioned,'   which  is  in  the  Act  of 
Parliament ;  that  is  what  you  state  ? — Yes. 

8437.  If  that  were  so  I  think  we  should  all  understand 
your  argument  very  clearly,  but  when  the  Proclamation 
is  looked  at,  '  the  advice  before  mentioned '  is  not  the 
advice  of  the  Act  of  Parliament  but  is  the  advice  of  the 
Lord  Protector  and  the  Privy  Council? — Yes,  but  I  think 
that  claims  the  authority  of  the  Act  of  Parliament.     The 
Privy  Council  could  not  do  anything  without  the  Act  of 
Parliament. 

8438.  They  could  do  what  they  professed  to  do,  put 
out  the  Proclamation.     The  King  puts  out  the  Proclama- 
tion with  the   advice  of   certain   persons,  those  persons 
being  the  Lord  Protector  and  the  Privy  Council.     That  is 
a  very  different  thing  from  saying  that  it  was   by  the 
advice  of  Parliament. — But  then  the  King  and  the  Privy 
Council  could  not  change  the  laws  of  the  Realm  without 
an  Act  of  Parliament. 

8439.  The  question  is  not  what  they  could  have  done 
but  what  they  purported  to  do,  and  it  is  now  agreed  that 
the  Proclamation  was  not  as  stated  in  your  book,  by  the 
advice  of  Parliament,  but  by  the  advice  of  the  Lord  Pro- 
tector and  the  Privy  Council? — On  their  advice,  but  not 
on  their  authority  apart  from  the  Act  of  Parliament. 

8440.  But  may  we  get  it  that  that  is  a  mistake ;  that 
although  it  is  stated  in   your  book  that  it  is  with  the 


THE  AUTHOEITY  OF  PAELIAMENT?        135 

advice  of  Parliament,  it  really  means  with  the  advice  of 
the  Lord  Protector  and  the  Privy  Council?  We  can 
argue  about  it  afterwards  to  any  extent  ? — No,  with  the 
advice  of  the  Privy  Council  basing  themselves  on  the  Act 
of  Parliament.  The  Act  does  not  advise. 

8441.  (Sir  Edward   Clarke.)     Then   you  would   so 
modify  the  passage  ? — That  is  what  I  meant  by  it.     An 
Act  of  Parliament  does  not  advise ;  it  enacts. 

8442.  (Sir  Lewis  Dibdin.)  You  meant  us  to  understand 
that  '  the  advice  before  mentioned '  meant  the  advice  of 
the  Lord  Protector  and  the  Privy  Council  ? — Yes. 

8443.  You  have  not   mentioned   either  one   or  the 
other  ? — Perhaps  that  was  careless ;  but  the  Proclamation 
rests  itself  and  bases  itself  upon  the  Act  of  Parliament. 

8444.  (Rev.  Dr.  Gibson.)  Then  may  I   ask  for  what 
does  the  Proclamation  claim  the  authority  of  the  Act  of 
Parliament  ? — For  the  Communion  in  both  kinds. 

8445.  Not  for  the  service  ? — Yes,  for  both. 

8446.  Will  you  tell  me  where  it  claims  the  authority 
of  Parliament  for  the  service  ? — I  do  not  take  that  passage 
as  isolated. 

I  went  on  to  refer  the  Commission  to  the 
circular  letter  sent  by  the  Council  to  the  bishops, 
together  with  copies  of  the  book  enjoining  its  use. 
The  letter  bore  the  signature  of  the  Council,  in- 
cluding among  others  Cranmer's,  the  Protector's, 
and  the  Lord  Chancellor's.  The  gist  of  the  letter 
is  contained  in  the  following  extracts  : — 

After  our  most  hearty  commendations  unto  your 
Lordships,  where,  in  the  Parliament  late  holden  at 
Westminster,  it  was,  amongst  other  things,  most  godly 
established  that,  according  to  the  first  institution  and 
use  of  the  primitive  Church,  the  most  holy  Sacrament  of 


136     AUTHOEITIES  CITED  IN  AFFIEMATIVE 

the  Body  and  Blood  of  our  Saviour  Jesus  Christ  should 
be  distributed  to  the  people  under  the  kinds  of  bread  and 
wine  ;  according  to  the  effect  whereof  the  King's  Majesty 
minding,  with  the  advice  and  consent  of  the  Lord  Pro- 
tector's grace,  and  the  rest  of  the  Council,  to  have  the  said 
statute  well  executed  in  such  sort,  as  like  as  it  is  agreeable 
to  the  Word  of  God,  so  the  same  may  also  be  faithfully 
and  reverently  received  of  his  most  loving  subjects,  to  their 
comfort  and  wealths,  hath  caused  sundry  of  his  Majesty's 
most  grave  and  learned  prelates  and  others,  learned  men 
in  the  Scriptures,  to  assemble  themselves  for  this  matter, 
who,  after  long  conference  together,  have,  with  deliberate 
advice,  finally  agreed  upon  such  an  Order,  to  be  used  in 
all  places  of  the  King's  Majesty's  dominions,  in  the  dis- 
tribution of  the  said  most  blessed  sacrament  as  may  appear 
unto  you  by  the  Book  thereof,  which  we  send  herewith 
unto  you. 

The  bishops  accordingly  are — 

to  cause  these  books  to  be  delivered  to  every  Parson,  Vicar, 
and  Curate  within  your  Diocese,  with  such  diligence  as 
they  may  have  sufficient  time  well  to  instruct  and  advise 
themselves,  for  the  distribution  of  the  most  holy  Communion, 
according  to  the  order  of  this  book,  before  this  Easter  time, 
and  that  they  may  by  your  good  means,  be  well  directed  to 
use  such  good,  gentle  and  charitable  instruction  of  their 
simple  and  unlearned  parishioners  as  may  be  all  to  their 
good  satisfaction  as  much  as  may  be,  praying  you  to  con- 
sider that  this  Order  is  set  forth  to  the  intent  there  should 
be  in  all  parts  of  the  Realm,  and  among  all  men,  one 
uniform  manner  quietly  used.  The  execution  whereof,  like 
as  it  shall  stand  very  much  in  the  diligence  of  you  and 
others  of  your  vocation  ;  so  do  we  eftsoons  require  you  to 
have  a  diligent  respect  thereunto,  as  ye  tender  the  King's 
Majesty's  pleasure,  and  will  answer  to  the  contrary. 


AUTHOKITIES  CITED  IN  AFFIKMATIVE     137 

This  says  in  plain  terms  that  the  Order  of  the 
Communion  is  the  logical  sequence  of  the  statute, 
its  necessary  complement.  '  To  have  the  statute 
well  executed,'  a  liturgical  form  is  issued,  part  of 
which  is  actually  contained  in  the  statute,  thus 
showing,  as  I  have  already  pointed  out,  that  Par- 
liament had  the  Order  of  the  Communion  before 
it  as  the  Act  was  passing  through  it.  Canon 
Dixon  says  that  the  Order  of  the  Communion  was 
compiled  and  issued  on  '  the  implied  authority  of 
the  late  Act ' — namely,  1  Edward  VI.  c.  1.  And 
certainly  that  was  the  contemporary  opinion.  For 
example,  Foxe,  who  gives  the  Council's  letter  entire, 
says  : — 

By  means  as  well  of  this  letter,  and  the  godly  order 
of  the  learned,  as  also  of  the  statute  and  Act  of  Parlia- 
ment before  mentioned  [1  Edward  VI.  c.  1]  made  for  the 
establishing  thereof,  all  private  blasphemous  masses  were 
now  by  just  authority  fully  abolished  throughout  the 
Eealm  of  England.1 

To  Foxe's  mind  *  The  Order  of  the  Communion ' 
was  a  most  important  fact  in  the  history  of  the 
Reformation. 

The  learned  editor  of  Hayward's  'Life  and 
Eeign  of  Edward  VI.'  says  explicitly  that  '  The 
Order  of  Communion  was  pursuant  to  the  Act 
An.  i.  Edw.  VI.  for  the  Administration  of  the 
Sacrament  in  both  kinds.' 2 

1  Foxe's  Acts  and  Mon.  p.  660,  folio  edition  of  1641.     The  italics 
in  the  quotation  are  mine.  2  P.  290,  fol.  ed. 


Heylin  gives  the  names  of  the  Joint  Committee 
of  Convocation  who  revised  The  Order  of  the 
Communion,  and  adds  : — 

Who  being  thus  convened  together,  and  taking  into 
consideration  as  well  the  right  rule  of  the  Scripture  as  the 
usage  of  the  primitive  Church,  agreed  on  such  a  form 
and  order  as  might  comply  with  the  intention  of  the  King 
and  the  Act  of  Parliament,  without  any  just  offence  to 
the  Romish  party.1 

Cardwell,  no  mean  authority,  who  made  a 
thorough  study  of  this  period,  says  : — *  The  Order  of 
the  Communion,  having  previously  been  approved 
by  Convocation,  and  authorised  by  Act  of  Par- 
liament, was  printed  by  Grafton  on  the  8th  of 
March,  1548,  and  accompanied  by  a  proclamation 
enjoining  the  general  use  of  it.'  2 

These  extracts  may  suffice  to  show  the  opinion 
of  standard  authorities  from  the  sixteenth  century 
to  our  own  time  as  to  the  Parliamentary  autho- 
rity of  the  Order  of  the  Communion.  And  the 
opinion  is  correct,  even  apart  from  1  Ed.  VI.  c.  1. 
Henry  VIII.  was  empowered  by  28  Hen.  VIII. 
c.  7,  confirmed  by  35  Hen.  VIII.  c.  1,  to  make  a 
will,  having  statutory  force,  to  provide  for  the 
government  of  the  realm  during  the  minority 
of  his  male  heir  (i.e.  till  Edward  VI.  was 
eighteen).  In  virtue  of  this  power  Henry  ap- 

1  Hist,  of  Eef.  119.  2  Doc.  Ann.  i.  72. 


AUTHOEITIES  CITED  IN  AFFIRMATIVE     139 

pointed  by  will  a  Council  who  should  administer 
affairs,  with  statutory  power,  during  the  nonage  of 
his  son.  Therefore  the  King's  Proclamation,  with 
the  advice  and  consent  of  his  Council,  sanctioning 
the  use  of  the  Order  of  the  Communion,  and  also 
the  encyclical  of  the  Council  enjoining  its  use,  had 
Parliamentary  authority. 

Dr.  Gee,  commenting  on  Sandys's  assertion 
that  the  Ornaments  Eubric  authorised  *  the  orna- 
ments which  were  used  in  the  first  and  second 
year  of  King  Edward,'  observes  : l — 

If,  then,  Sandys  weighed  his  words,  we  must  suppose 
that  he  meant  the  year  1548,  which  was  partly  first 
and  partly  second,  since  Edward  began  his  reign  on 
January  28.  In  that  case  Sandys's  explanation  of  the 
proviso  is  intelligible.  The  year  1548  had  its  own  legal 
ornaments. 

These  ornaments,  according  to  Dr.  Gee,  mean 
all  the  ornaments  which  the  Injunctions  of  1547 
spared ;  in  other  words,  all  the  ceremonial  of 
Divine  Service,  and  especially  the  ceremonial  of 
the  Mass,  which  a  rubric  in  the  subsequent  Order 
of  the  Communion  forbade  to  be  changed  in  any 
particular  save  only  in  the  matter  of  the  elevation. 
Moreover,  a  Proclamation  was  issued  by  the  King, 
on  the  advice  of  his  Council,  in  the  beginning  of 
Edward's  second  year,  '  against  those  that  doeth 
innovate,  alter,  or  leave  doune  any  rite  or  cere- 

1  The  Elizabethan  Prayer-Book,  p.  107. 


140  LITTLE  CHANGE  IN  EITUAL 

mony  in  the  Church  of  their  private  authority.' 
To  put  a  stop  to  unauthorised  innovations  on  the 
part  of  '  certain  private  curates,  preachers,  and 
laymen  ...  in  some  parish  churches  and  other- 
wise,' the  Proclamation  ordains  as  follows  : — 

Wherefore  his  Majesty  straitly  chargeth  and  com- 
mandeth,  that  no  manner  person,  of  what  state,  order, 
or  degree  soever  he  be,  of  his  private  mind,  will, 
or  phantasie,  do  omit,  leave  doune,  change,  alter,  or  in- 
novate any  order,  rite  or  ceremony,  commonly  used  and 
frequented  in  the  Church  of  Englande,  and  not  com- 
manded to  be  left  doune  at  any  time  in  the  reign  of  our 
late  sovereign  lord,  his  Highness's  father,  other  than 
such  as  his  Highness,  by  the  advice  aforesaid,  by  his 
Majesty's  visitors,  injunctions,  statutes,  or  proclamations, 
hath  already,  or  hereafter  shall  command  to  be  omitted, 
left,  innovated,  or  changed,  &C.1 

The  ritual  observances  of  Edward's  first  and 
second  years  in  the  matter  of  public  worship  were 
practically  the  same  as  those  in  use  at  Henry  YIII.'s 
death.  But  Dr.  Gee  thinks  that  *  there  is  a  fatal 
objection  to  this  argument,'  although  it  exactly  fits 
Sandys's  explanation  of  the  Ornaments  Eubric  as 
ordering  the  ornaments  of  'the  first  and  second 
year '  of  Edward.  '  The  fatal  objection '  is  that 
'  the  policy  of  the  Injunctions  of  1547  could  not  be 
described  as  "by  authority  of  Parliament."  But 
Dr.  Gee,  who  is  usually  so  careful,  has  made  two 
mistakes  here.  He  has  forgotten  that  the  In- 

1  Burnet,  v.  188. 


IN  EDWAED'S  FIEST  TWO  YEAES          141 

junctions  of  1547  were  published  before  the  repeal 
of  the  Proclamation  Act,  which  gave  statutory  force 
to  royal  proclamations.  Whatever  was  ordered, 
therefore,  by  the  Injunctions  was  '  by  authority  of 
Parliament.'  The  Injunctions  had  also  the  autho- 
rity of  Parliament  for  another  reason,  for  they 
were  issued  by  the  King  on  the  advice  of  his 
Council,  whose  acts  had,  by  Henry's  will,  statutory 
force  during  the  minority  of  Edward  VI. 

Gardiner  seems  to  have  been  the  only  person 
who  disputed  the  parliamentary  authority  of  the 
Injunctions  of  1547  at  the  time.  His  objections 
were  overruled  and  the  Injunctions  were  enforced. 
It  has  been  objected  by  some  modern  writers  that 
the  Injunctions  did  not  comply  with  the  formali- 
ties required  by  31  Hen.  VIII.  c.  8 ;  e.g.  that  any 
ordinance  issued  by  the  King  on  the  advice  of  his 
Council  '  shall  import  or  bear  underwritten  the  full 
name  of  such  of  the  King's  Honourable  Council 
then  being  as  shall  be  the  devisors  or  setters  forth 
of  the  same,  which  shall  be  in  this  case  the  whole 
number  afore  rehearsed,  or  at  least  the  more  part 
of  them,  or  else  the  proclamation  to  be  void  and  of 
none  effect.'  The  objectors  have  written  without 
knowing  that  the  original  copy  of  the  Injunctions 
still  exists  in  Corpus  Christi  College,  Cambridge,  and 
bears  the  signature  of  the  King  and  a  majority  of 
his  Council,  including  Somerset  and  Cranmer.  Sir 
John  Dodson,  before  giving  judgment  in  Wester  ton 
v.  Liddell,  verified  their  signatures,  and  decided 


142  CONTEMPOEAEY  OPINION  OF 

that  the  Injunctions  had  parliamentary  authority. 
Gardiner,  it  must  be  added,  retracted  his  objections 
to  the  Injunctions.  Bonner,  who  showed  himself 
recalcitrant  towards  some  other  acts  of  the  Council, 
received  the  Injunctions  without  demur.  Objection 
was  also  made  at  the  time  to  the  alleged  statutory 
force  of  regal  acts  by  advice  of  the  Council  during 
the  King's  minority.  The  question  was  referred  to 
the  Judges,  who  decided  that  the  King  had  such 
power  during  his  minority. 

It  must  be  borne  in  mind,  moreover,  that  the 
question  is  not  what  lawyers  think  nowadays 
of  the  parliamentary  authority  or  otherwise  of 
Edward  VI. 's  Injunctions  and  Proclamations,  but 
what  was  thought  of  them  at  the  time.  In  mattter 
of  fact,  they  claimed  to  have  coercive  force,  and 
were  obeyed  accordingly.  The  Constitution  was  at 
that  time  in  a  very  unsettled  and  transition  state, 
and  regal  acts  which  would  not  be  considered  to 
have  statutory  force  now  were  accepted  as  statu- 
tory then.  The  Supremacy  Act,  for  example 
(26  Hen.  VIII.  c.  1),  ordained : 

That  the  King,  his  heirs  and  successors,  shall  have 
full  power  and  authority  from  time  to  time  to  visit, 
repress,  redress,  reform,  correct,  restrain  and  amend  all 
such  errors,  heresies,  abuses,  offences,  contempts  and 
enormities,  whatsoever  they  be,  which  by  any  manner  of 
spiritual  authority  or  jurisdiction  ought  or  may  lawfully 
be  reformed,  repressed,  corrected,  restrained  or  amended, 
most  to  the  pleasure  of  Almighty  God,  the  increase  of 
virtue  in  Christ's  religion,  and  for  the  conservancy  of  the 


JUDICIAL  AUTHOEITIES  143 

peace,  unity,  and  tranquillity  of  this  realm,  any  usage, 
custom,  foreign  law,  authority,  or  any  other  thing  or 
things  to  the  contrary  hereof  notwithstanding. 

The  lawyers  of  that  period  held  that  this  Act, 
together  with  Henry's  statutory  will,  gave  parlia- 
mentary force  to  Edward's  ordinances  by  the 
advice  of  his  Council,  especially  to  such  an  ordi- 
nance as  the  Order  of  the  Communion,  which  was, 
in  fact,  a  corollary  and  complement  of  1  Ed.  VI. 
c.  1.  But  in  any  case  the  will  of  Henry  VIII.  gave 
statutory  force  to  the  King's  Proclamation  and 
the  encyclical  to  the  bishops,  both  of  them  on  the 
advice  of  the  Council.  The  Injunctions  also  gave 
the  authority  of  Parliament  to  the  ornaments  in 
use  in  Edward's  second  year,  as  Dr.  Gee  has 
pointed  out,  although  he  has  made  a  mistake  in 
thinking  that  the  Injunctions  did  not  possess  par- 
liamentary authority. 

But,  in  addition  to  all  this,  I  fall  back  on  an 
argument  which  I  ventured  to  press  on  the  Koyal 
Commission,  and  which  Sir  Lewis  Dibdin  and  Sir 
Edward  Clarke  energetically  rejected.  I  recognise 
my  presumption  as  a  layman  in  refusing  to  be 
convinced  by  two  lawyers  of  such  distinction  ;  but 
they  would,  I  feel  sure,  be  the  first  to  admit  that 
the  question  must  be  settled  by  the  logic  of  reason 
and  of  facts,  and  not  by  the  weight  of  mere  autho- 
rity, however  eminent.  The  argument  is,  that  the 
Order  of  the  Communion  was  compiled  by  one  of 
those  picked  committees  of  bishops  and  divines 


144        AEGUMENT  FEOM  32  HEN.  VIII.  C.  26 

which  were  empowered  by  32  Hen.  VIII.  c.  26  to 
put  out  formularies  of  doctrine  and  ceremonies, 
having  the  force  of  statute  law.  I  have  given  the 
crucial  part  of  this  statute  on  p.  44,  but  for  the 
sake  of  convenience  I  repeat  it  here  : — 

Whereas    the    King's    Majesty  .  .  .  hath   appointed 
.  .  .  the   archbishops   and  sundry  bishops  of  both  pro- 
vinces .  .  .  and  also  a  great  number  of  the  most  learned 
honestest   and   most   virtuous    sort   of    the    Doctors   of 
Divinity  men  of  discretion  judgment  and  good  disposition 
of  the  realm,  to  the  intent  that  .  .  .  they  should  declare 
by  writing  and  publish  as  well  the  principal  articles  and 
points  of  our  faith  and  belief  with  the  declaration  true 
understanding  and  observation  of  all  such  other  expedient 
points  as  by  them,  with  his  Grace's  advice  counsel  and 
consent,  shall  be  thought  needful  and  expedient,  and  also 
for  the  lawful  rites  ceremonies  and  observances  of  God's 
service  within  his  Grace's  realm.  .  .  .  BE  IT  THEBEFORE 
ENACTED  .  .  .  that  all  and  every  determinations  declara- 
tions decrees  definitions  resolutions  and   ordinances,  as, 
according  to  God's  Word  and   Christ's   Gospel,  by  his 
Majesty's  advice  and  confirmation  by  his  letters  patent, 
shall  at  any  time  hereafter  be  made  set  forth  declared 
denned  resolved  and  ordained  by  the  said  archbishops 
bishops  and  doctors  now  appointed,  or  by  other  persons 
hereafter  to  be  appointed  by  his  Majesty  or  else  by  the 
whole   clergy   of   England,  in   or  upon   the   matters  of 
Christ's  religion  and  Christian  faith  and  the  lawful  rites 
ceremonies  and  observations  of  the  same,  shall  be  in  all 
and  every  point  limitation  and  circumstance  thereof,  by 
all  his  Grace's  subjects  and  other  residents  and  inhabitants 
within  the  realm  .  .  .  fully  believed  obeyed  observed  and 
performed  ...  as   if    the   said   determinations    declara- 
tions .  .  .  had  been  by  express  words  terms  and  sentences 


WAS  32  HEN.  VIII.  REPEALED  IN  1547?     145 

plainly  set  out  and  contained  in  the  present  Act.  Pro- 
vided that  nothing  be  done  ordained  ...  by  authority  of 
this  Act  which  shall  be  repugnant  or  contrariant  to  the 
laws  and  statutes  of  this  realm.1 

This  is  very  comprehensive.  It  gives  statutory 
force  to  any  '  lawful  rites,  ceremonies,  and  obser- 
vances of  God's  service '  that  '  shall  at  any  time 
hereafter  be  made  by'  the  picked  committee  of 
bishops  and  divines  then  appointed,  '  or  by  other 
persons  hereafter  to  be  appointed  by  his  Majesty, 
or  else  by  the  whole  clergy  of  England.'  These 
conditions  were  fulfilled  by  the  committee  which 
compiled  the  Order  of  the  Communion.  It  was 
practically  a  continuation,  by  Edward's  appoint- 
ment, of  Henry's  committee,  which  had  never  been 
dissolved.  It  consisted  partly  of  the  same  members, 
and  its  work  was  adopted  and  sanctioned  '  by  the 
whole  clergy  of  England '  through  their  representa- 
tives in  Convocation. 

So  far  it  cannot  be  questioned  that  the  Order  of 
the  Communion  thus  rested  on  the  authority  of  Par- 
liament. But  it  is  contended  that  32  Hen.  VIII. 
c.  26  was  repealed  by  1  Edward  VI.  c.  12,  not 
directly  or  in  express  terms,  but  indirectly  by  some 
general  words  at  the  end.  The  Act  is  entitled, 
'  An  Act  for  the  Eepeal  of  certain  Statutes  con- 
cerning Treasons,  Felonies,  &c.'  I  give  the  rele- 
vant part  of  this  Act  in  Appendix  B.,  and  if  the 

1  32  Hen.  VIII.  c.  26  (Statutes  of  the  Realm,  printed  by  com- 
mand from  Original  Eecords  and  authentic  MSS.  1817,  iii.  738). 


146  EEASONS  TO  THE  CONTRARY 

reader  will  read  it  carefully  he  will  see  that  its 
intention  is  to  repeal  all  statutes  involving  death 
penalties  or  forfeitures  for  treason,  petit  treason,  or 
felonies  other  than  those  imposed  in  the  statute 
made  in  the  twenty-eighth  year  of  Eichard  III. 
And  then,  coming  to  particulars,  the  Act  pro- 
ceeds :  — 
AII  Acts  respecting  And  also  be  it  enacted  by  the  authority 


ied  ;  aforesaid,  that  all  Acts  of  Parliament  and 

namely,  5  R.  II.  sec.  2,  ,  .  . 

c.  5  ;  2  H.  v.  sec.  i,    Estatutes  touching,  mentioning,  or  in  any 

o.7;25H.Vin.  c.14;         .  .  1°'        .  J 

31  H.  vin.  c.  14  ;      wise  concerning  Kehgion  or  opinions,  that 

34,  35  H.  VIII.  c.  1  ;      .  *  r? 

35  H.  vm.  c.  5.        is  to  say  as  well  the  Statute  made.  .  .  . 

and  it  goes  on  to  enumerate  a  number  of  statutes  as 
given  in  the  marginal  notes,  which  I  copy  here  from 
the  '  Statutes  of  the  Kealm,'  and  ends  as  follows  :  — 

And  all  and  every  other  Act  or  Acts  of  Parliament 
concerning  doctrine,  matters  of  Religion,  and  all  and 
every  branch,  article,  sentence,  and  matter  of  pains  and 
forfeiture  contained,  mentioned,  or  in  any  wise  declared 
in  any  of  the  same  Acts  of  Parliament  or  Estatutes,  shall 
from  henceforth  be  repealed  and  utterly  void  and  of  none 
effect. 

To  my  mind  it  is  quite  plain  that  the  conclud- 
ing words  refer  only  and  exclusively  to  any  Act 
concerning  religion  and  opinion,  which  involved 
'  pains  and  forfeitures  contained,  mentioned,  or  in 
any  wise  declared  '  in  any  such  Acts.  Tierney,  in 
his  edition  of  *  Dodd's  Church  History  '  (ii.  p.  7), 
gives  the  meaning  of  1  Edward  VI.  c.  12  with 
accurate  brevity  :  — 


EEASONS  TO  THE  CONTEAEY      147 

Among  the  principal  obstacles  to  the  designs  of  the 
Eeformers  were  the  restrictions  imposed  by  the  enact- 
ments of  the  late  reign  on  the  religious  opinions  of  the 
people.  To  remove  this  impediment  an  Act  was  now 
brought  in  and  passed  with  the  general  assent  of  the  two 
Houses.  By  it  all  felonies  created  since  the  first  year  of 
Henry  VIII.,  all  treasons  created  since  the  twenty-fifth 
of  Edward  II.,  were  abolished.  The  statute  for  the 
punishment  of  the  Lollards  and  other  heretics,  the 
statute  of  the  Six  Articles,  all  laws  concerning  doctrines 
and  matters  of  religion,  and  all  prohibitions  of  reading, 
teaching,  and  expounding  the  Scriptures,  and  of  print- 
ing, selling,  and  retaining  English  publications,  were 
repealed. 

But  '  The  Statutes  at  Large ' — an  edition  of 
the  statutes  which  has  no  authority  whatever — 
gives  the  contents  of  32  Hen.  VIII.  c.  26  in  five 
lines  and  a  half,  and  puts  opposite  this  in  the 
margin  '  Kep.  1  Ed.  VI.  c.  12.'  And  a  number  of 
writers  copy  this,  apparently  without  examining 
1  Ed.  VI.  c.  12  for  themselves,  or  considering  the 
consequences  that  would  follow  this  extraordinary 
construction  of  the  statute.  '  The  Statutes  of  the 
Kealm,'  which  is  the  standard  and  authorised 
edition  of  the  statutes,  omits  the  unauthorised 
marginal  note  in  '  The  Statutes  at  Large,'  and 
puts  instead  of  it  the  marginal  note  which  the 
reader  will  find  on  the  preceding  page.  In  the 
year  1800  the  House  of  Commons  presented  an 
address  to  the  King  praying  that  a  new  and 
complete  edition  of  the  statutes  should  be  pub- 
lished. The  King  replied  by  appointing  a  very 

L  2 


148      EEASONS  TO  THE  CONTEAEY 

able  and  numerous  commission  for  this  purpose, 
including  Pitt,  the  three  principal  Secretaries  of 
State,  the  Law  Officers  of  the  Crown,  the  Lord 
Advocate  of  Scotland,  and  a  number  of  other 
eminent  men.  The  work  went  on  for  more  than 
five  years,  and  in  1806  the  King  appointed  a 
second  commission,  including  several  of  the 
members  of  the  first  commission.  The  introduc- 
tion to  this  monumental  work  says  that  it  is  the 
only  complete  and  authentic  edition  of  the  statutes. 
To  my  great  surprise,  both  Sir  Lewis  Dibdin 
and  Sir  Edward  Clarke  adopted  the  marginal  note 
in  '  The  Statutes  at  Large,'  and  insisted  that 
1  Ed.  VI.  c.  12  repealed  32  Hen.  VIII.  c.  26.  I 
will  quote  here  as  much  of  my  cross-examination 
as  will  bring  this  out.  On  my  referring  to 
32  Hen.  VIII.  c.  26,  Sir  Lewis  Dibdin  asked  some 
questions,  which  I  quote  here  with  my  answers  and 
Sir  Edward  Clarke's  interventions  : — 

8474.  But  before  we  go  into  that,  are  you  not  aware 
that  that  Act  was  repealed  by  1  Edward  VI.  Chapter  12, 
that  is  to  say,  that  the  same  Royal  Assent  which  gave 
assent  to  the  Act  for  Communion  in  both  kinds  repealed 
that  Act  of  Henry,  so  that  nothing  could  have  been  done 
under  it  ? — I  think  the  Act  was  repealed  in  the  reign  of 
Queen  Victoria. 

8475.  I  notice  that  you  say  that  in  your  book,  but 
I  think  you  are  in  error  ? — I  do  not  think  so. 

8476.  Perhaps  I  am  wrong,  but  if  you  look  at  '  The 
Statutes  at  Large '  you  will  see  a  statement  of  what  this 
Act  of  Henry  VIII.  contained.      It  is  32  Henry  VIII. 


EEASONS  TO  THE  CONTEAKY      149 

Chapter  26,  and  at  the  end  of  it  are  these  words :  '  Re- 
pealed by  the  general  words  of  Stat.  1  Edward  6,  c.  12, 
sec.  3.'  Those  general  words  seem,  if  I  may  say  so, 
quite  adequate  for  the  purpose.  1  Edward  VI.,  Chapter 
12,  was  an  Act  dealing  with  penalties  of  various  kinds, 
and  at  the  end  of  the  third  section,  which  deals  with  certain 
specific  statutes  and  repeals  them,  it  says  :  '  And  all  and 
every  other  Act  or  Acts  of  Parliament  concerning  doctrine 
or  matters  of  religion,  and  all  and  every  branch,  article, 
sentence  and  matter,  pains  and  forfeitures  contained, 
mentioned  or  in  any  wise  declared  in  any  of  the  same 
Acts  of  Parliament  or  Estatutes,  shall  from  henceforth 
be  repealed,  and  utterly  void  and  of  none  effect.'  You 
observe  the  words  in  the  Act  of  Parliament,  '  concerning 
doctrine  or  matters  of  religion '  ? — That  was  as  regards 
penalties,  was  it  not  ? 

8477.  No  ;  it  was  the  whole  Act  where  there  was  a 
penalty  ? — But  why  then  should  it  be  necessary  to  repeal 
it  in  the  reign  of  Queen  Victoria  ? 

8478.  (Sir  Edward  Clarke.)  Because  we  had  a  Statute 
Law  Revision  Committee  then.    Although  the  effect  of 
repealing  one  Act  might  be  to  repeal  or  destroy  it,  where 
the  Act  was  not  repealed  in  terms  it  remained  upon  the 
list  of  statutes,  and  our  Statute  Law  Revision  Committee 
cleared  off  a  great  deal  of  absolutely  obsolete  Acts,  or 
Acts  which  were  practically  repealed  by  another  statute ; 
it  was  simply  a  clearing-off  process. 

8479.  (Sir  Lewis  Dibdin.)    And  I  may  supplement 
what  Sir  Edward  Clarke  says  by  reading  you  the  Act. 
The  preamble  of  every  Statute  Law  Revision  Act,  but  of 
this  one  in   particular  in  1863,  is  '  It  is  expedient  that 
certain  enactments  (mentioned  in  the  Schedule  to  this 
Act)  which  have  ceased  to  be  in  force  otherwise  than  by 
express  and  specific  repeal,  or  have,  by  lapse  of  time  and 
change  of  circumstances,  become  unnecessary,  should  be 
expressly  and  specifically  repealed.'     You  see  there  had 


150      EEASONS  TO  THE  CONTKABY 

been  no  express  and  specific  repeal  of  that  Act  of 
Henry  VIII.  It  had  been  repealed  by  general  words  in 
the  Act  of  Edward,  which  I  have  read  to  you  ;  therefore 
it  remained,  as  Sir  Edward  Clarke  has  told  you,  on  the 
Statute  Book,  in  a  general  kind  of  way  repealed,  but  not 
specifically  and  specially  repealed  until,  when  the  practice 
of  clearing  up  the  Statute  Book  and  cutting  out  what 
was  useless  and  gone,  for  different  reasons,  came  in,  then 
in  one  of  the  very  earliest  Statute  Law  Eevision  Acts, 
this  Act  was  cut  out,  not  because  it  was  law  till  then, 
but  because  it  had  never  been  specifically  repealed?— 
What  is  the  effect  in  law  of  a  statute  not  specifically 
repealed  ? 

8480.  If  it  is  repealed  by  general  words  it  is  repealed  ? 
— What  Act  do  you  say  repealed  it  ? 

8481.  The  Act  of   1  Edward  VI.,  Chapter  12,   Sec- 
tion 3 — this  very  session  that  we  are   dealing   with? — 
Does  it  mention  this  Act  specifically  ? 

8482.  No ;  that  is  just  the  point. 

8483.  (Sir  Edward  Clarke.)  If  it  had  mentioned  that 
Act   specifically,   that   Act   would   have   disappeared   by 
virtue  of  that   statute   from   the   Statute   Book,  but  it 
destroys  the  effect  altogether  of  the  Act  without  speci- 
fically repealing  it. 

8484.  (Sir  Lewis  Dibdin.)   If  the  Act,  1  Edward  VI., 
Chapter   12,   had   mentioned   that    Act    it   would   have 
specifically  repealed  it ;  it  is  because  it  did  not  mention 
it,  but  says  that  all  Acts  dealing  with  that  subject  matter 
are  repealed,  that  it  was  only  a  general  repeal — which 
was  quite  effective  to  repeal  it,  but  still  a  general  repeal — 
and  therefore  requiring  this  specific  repeal  in  1863. 

This  is  quite  plain.  Those  two  distinguished 
lawyers  hold  that  1  Ed.  VI.  c.  12  repealed  all 
previous  Acts  of  Parliament  '  concerning  doctrine 


AUTHOEITIES  QUOTED  151 

or  matters  of  religion,'  and  therefore  32  Hen.  VIII. 
c.  12.  There  seems  to  me  to  be  a  fatal  objection 
to  that  construction.  But  before  I  come  to  that 
I  will  take  the  liberty  of  pointing  out  what  seems 
an  inaccuracy  in  the  explanation  given  by  Sir 
Edward  Clarke  of  the  repeal  of  32  Hen.  VIII.  c.  26 
as  late  as  the  year  1863.  Sir  Edward  Clarke — and 
Sir  Lewis  Dibdin  supported  him — says  that  the 
Act  in  question  was  one  of  many  '  absolutely 
obsolete  Acts,  or  Acts  which  were  practically 
repealed  by  another  statute.'  But  an  Act  obsolete 
in  the  year  1863  was  by  no  means  obsolete  in  the 
year  1547 — that  is,  within  a  few  years  of  its  en- 
actment. And  I  respectfully  submit  that  there  is 
no  such  thing  known  in  law  as  an  Act  '  practically 
repealed  by  another  statute  '  unless  it  is  clearly 
contradictory  to  it.  Let  me  quote  one  or  two 
authorities  : — 

A  subsequent  statute  may  repeal  a  prior  one,  not  only 
expressly,  but  by  implication,  as  when  it  is  contrary 
thereto,  i.e.  so  clearly  repugnant  that  it  necessarily 
implies  a  negative ;  but  if  the  Acts  can  stand  together 
they  shall  have  a  concurrent  efficacy.1 

I  hold,  with  all  deference,  that  32  Hen.  VIII. 
c.  26  and  1  Edward  VI.  c.  12  can  very  well 
*  stand  together.' 

Maxwell,  a  recognised  authority,  writes : — 

1  Wharton's  Lmv  Lexicon,  p.  15,  9th  edition  by  J.  M,  Lely,  Esq., 
M.A.,  Barrister-at-Law. 


152  ABSURD  RESULTS  OP  THEORY 

But  it  is  in  the  interpretation  of  general  words  and 
phrases  that  the  principle  of  strictly  adapting  the  meaning 
to  the  particular  subject-matter  in  reference  to  which 
the  words  are  used  finds  its  most  frequent  application  ; 
.  .  .  and  it  is  necessary  to  give  the  meaning  which  best 
suits  the  scope  and  object  of  the  statute  without  extending 
to  ground  foreign  to  the  intention.  It  is  therefore  a 
canon  of  interpretation  that  all  words,  if  they  be  general, 
and  not  precise  and  express,  are  to  be  restricted  to  the 
fitness  of  the  matter.  They  are  to  be  construed  as  par- 
ticular if  the  intention  be  particular ;  that  is,  they  must 
be  understood  as  used  in  reference  to  the  subject-matter 
in  the  mind  of  the  Legislature,  and  strictly  limited  to  it. 
The  law  will  not  allow  the  revocation  or  alteration  of  a 
statute  by  construction  when  the  words  may  have  their 
proper  meaning  without  it.1 

This  recognised  canon  of  interpretation  surely 
restricts  1  Ed.  VI.  c.  12  to  the  subject-matter  of 
that  statute,  and  forbids  the  general  application  of 
the  concluding  words  on  which  Sir  Lewis  Dibdin 
and  Sir  Edward  Clarke  rely. 

And  as  to  the  question  of  the  obsoleteness  of 
a  statute,  the  same  author  observes :  '  The  law  is 
not  repealed  by  becoming  obsolete,'  and  he  refers 
to  Trial  by  Battle,  which  was  still  in  force  in  1819, 
and  to  a  number  of  other  instances. 

But  apart  from  the  internal  evidence  against  the 
accuracy  of  the  marginal  note  in  '  The  Statutes  at 
Large,'  supported  though  it  be  by  two  distinguished 
lawyers  like  Sir  Edward  Clarke  and  Sir  Lewis 

1  On  the  Interpretation  of  Statutes,  pp.  75,  188. 


OF  KEPEAL  OF  32  HEN.  VIII.  c.  26         153 

Dibdin,  I  have  another  objection  to  urge  against 
that  construction  of  1  Ed.  VI.  c.  12,  which  is 
surely  quite  fatal  to  it.  It  would  play  havoc  with 
a  large  part  of  the  history  of  England,  for  if  the 
general  words  relied  on  by  the  editor  of '  The  Statutes 
at  Large,'  and  those  who  follow  his  lead,  repealed 
32  Hen.  VIII.  c.  26,  it  repealed  a  great  deal  more. 
It  repealed  in  fact  the  whole  of  the  anti-Papal 
legislation  of  Henry  VIII. ;  and  not  only  so,  but 
in  addition  every  Act  of  Parliament  dealing  with 
doctrine  and  matters  of  religion  back  to  and  in- 
cluding Magna  Charta.  It  is  an  infallible  rule  of 
logic  that  a  reasoner  cannot  take  as  much  of  an 
argument  as  he  pleases.  He  must  take  it  entire 
with  all  its  consequences,  or  leave  it  alone.  Sir 
Lewis  Dibdin' s  and  Sir  Edward  Clarke's  contention 
that  1  Ed.  VI.  c.  12  repealed  32  Hen.  VIII.  c.  26 
thus  proves  too  much,  which  means  that  it  proves 
nothing  at  all. 

Recognising  my  presumption  in  venturing  to 
pit  my  own  opinion  against  distinguished  lawyers, 
I  submitted  the  above  argument  to  two  lawyers  of 
reputation  and  eminence,  and  both  of  them  con- 
firmed my  view.  One  of  them  writes  as  follows  : 

You  take  the  Order  of  the  Communion  as  having 
Parliamentary  authority,  and  being  the  t  instrument  to 
which  our  present  Bubric  refers.  You  say  it  has  statutory 
authority  under  1  Edward  VI.  c.  1,  and  possiblyj'also 
under  32  Hen.  VIII.  c.  26.  It  is  with  the  latter  statute 
that  we  have  at  present  to  do.  You  tell  me  that  Sir  L. 


154  AUTHOEITIES  QUOTED 

Dibdin  and  Sir  Edward  Clarke  say  that  that  statute  was 
repealed  by  the  general  terms  of  1  Edward  VI.  c.  12. 

I  quite  agree  with  you  that  this  is  impossible.  If  this 
were  so  all  sorts  of  religious  statutes,  not  merely  the  anti- 
Papal  legislation  of  Henry  VIII.,  but  the  Statute  of 
Praemunire;  the  statute  forbidding  the  Archbishops  of 
Canterbury  to  cite  into  their  courts  directly  the  subjects 
of  the  different  diocesan  bishops,  commonly  called  the 
Statute  of  Citations,  which  has  been  enforced  over  and 
over  again  by  the  Common  Law  Courts  ;  the  Acts  of 
Henry  VIII.  about  tithe  in  the  City  of  London,  which 
are  in  force  to  this  day,  and  but  a  few  years  ago  were  the 
subject  of  decisions  in  the  House  of  Lords ;  the  statute 
which  gave  the  appeals  to  the  Delegates, — would  all  be 
repealed. 

Precisely  the  same  argument  was  used  in  the  cases  of 
Martin  v.  Mackonochie,  and  Flamank  v.  Simpson, 
when  the  legality  of  the  two  lights  on  the  Holy  Table 
was  supported  by  the  Injunctions  of  Edward  VI.,  and  the 
prosecution  replied  that  the  statute  giving  authority  to 
these  Injunctions  had  been  repealed  by  the  same  general 
words  of  1  Edward  VI.  c.  12. 

I  have  looked  up  that  case,  and  I  find  that 
Mr.  Hannen,  afterwards  Lord  Hannen  and  a  dis- 
tinguished Judge,  was  one  of  the  counsel  for  the 
defence.  He  adopted  precisely  the  same  argument 
that  I  have  used  against  a  similar  line  of  reason- 
ing ;  and  the  Dean  of  the  Arches  (the  late  Sir  E. 
Phillimore)  endorsed  Mr.  Hannen's  argument,  as 
the  following  extract  from  that  learned  Judge's 
judgment  will  show  : — 

It  was  truly  observed  by  Mr.  Hannen  that  the  object 
of  this  statute  is  to  repeal  laws  which  inflicted  severe 


A  PLAUSIBLE  AEGUMENT  155 

punishments  and  penalties,  imprisonment,  fine,  and  death, 
on  account  of  opinions  entertained  '  concerning  doctrine 
or  matters  of  religion,'  such  as  had  been  enforced  in  the 
reigns  of  Eichard  II.,  Henry  V.,  and  Henry  VIII.,  against 
heretics  of  various  kinds. 

If  the  wider  signification  which  has  been  contended 
for  be  given  to  this  statute,  it  would  in  truth  repeal  the 
principal  statutes  enacted  during  the  reign  of  Henry  VIII. 
for  establishing  the  independence  of  the  Church  of 
England. 

It  will  be  difficult  to  maintain  that  the  statutes  against 
the  payment  of  annates  (23  Hen.  VIII.  c.  20),  the 
Restraint  of  Appeals  (24  Hen.  VIII.  c.  12),  and  even  the 
Act  of  Supremacy  (25  Hen.  VIII.  c.  19),  would  not  fall 
under  the  category  of  enactments  concerning  'doctrine 
or  matters  of  religion  ' ;  but  in  truth  the  number  of 
statutes  which  this  construction  would  repeal  might 
amount  to  forty-two,  and  certainly  would  include  a  great 
many  of  grave  importance.  I  remember  that  Sir  W. 
Maule  (one  of  the  members  of  the  Judicial  Committee) 
observed,  '  that  if  there  were  anything  in  Magna  Charta 
about  religion,  it  would  on  this  construction  be  repealed.' 

I  am  of  opinion  that  the  operation  of  this  statute  of 
Edward  VI.  must  be  confined  within  the  limits  which  I 
have  stated,  and  that  it  has  not  repealed  any  power  to 
issue  Eoyal  injunctions  which  Henry  VIII.  derived,  either 
from  the  Supremacy  or  the  Proclamation  Statute.1 

Sir  Lewis  Dibdin,  with  characteristic  alertness, 
made  a  plausible  objection  to  my  appeal  to 
32  Hen.  VIII.  c.  26,  which  I  must  meet.  '  If  that 
were  so,'  he  said,  '  I  suppose  no  Act  of  Uniformity 
would  have  been  necessary.  They  could  have  put 

1  '  Martin  v.  Mackonochie  '  (Law  Reports,  Admiralty  and  Eccle- 
siastical, ii.  228). 


156     SANDYS  ON  FIEST  AND  SECOND  YEAE 

out  the  Prayer-Book  under  that  Act  too.'  The 
answer  to  this  objection  is  supplied  by  the  first 
Act  of  Uniformity.  The  variety  of  Uses  in  different 
dioceses  caused  such  confusion  and  led  to  so  many 
innovations  that  it  was  determined  at  last  to  have 
only  one  Use  throughout  the  realm,  and  to  enforce 
this  with  stringent  and  penal  regulations,  the 
ordinary  law  not  sufficing  to  arrest  the  mischief. 
The  preamble  of  the  Act  says  : — 

And  albeit  the  King's  Majesty,  with  the  advice  of  his 
most  entirely  beloved  uncle  the  Lord  Protector  and  others 
of  his  Highness's  Council,  has  heretofore  divers  times 
essayed  to  stay  innovations  or  new  rites  concerning  the 
premises ;  yet  the  same  has  not  had  such  good  success  as 
his  Highness  required  in  that  behalf. 

Therefore  the  Act  of  Uniformity  provides  an 
elaborate  machinery  to  bring  order  out  of  chaos 
and  enforce  obedience,  which  previous  regulations 
had  failed  to  do. 

Let  us  now  consider  the  testimony  of  Sandys : 

The  last  Book  of  Service  is  gone  through  with  a  proviso 
to  retain  the  ornaments  which  were  used  in  the  first  and 
second  year  of  King  Edward,  until  it  please  the  Queen  to 
take  other  order  for  them.  Our  gloss  upon  this  text  is 
that  we  shall  not  be  forced  to  use  them,  but  that  others 
in  the  meantime  shall  not  carry  them  away,  but  they  may 
remain  for  the  Queen. 

Strype  says  truly  that  Sandys's  proposed 
'  gloss  '  is  but  a  private  opinion.  But  what  did 
Sandys  mean  by  'the  first  and  second  year  of 
King  Edward  '  ?  Sir  Lewis  Dibdin  tried  hard  to 


SANDYS  ON  FIEST  AND  SECOND  YEAR     157 

get  me  to  admit  that  Sandys  made  a  mistake  in 
any  case.     He  said  : — 

There  is  clearly  a  mistake  in  Sandys's  reference,  because 
either  from  your  point  of  view  or  the  received  view — my 
view  I  will  call  it — the  first  and  second  year  was  wrong. 
It  was  wrong  either  way,  because  if  it  meant  the  use  in 
the  second  year,  then  that  is  not  the  first  and  second 
year ;  and  if  it  meant  the  Act  of  Uniformity,  then  that 
is  not  the  first  and  second  year.  It  is  a  wrong  reference 
either  way,  is  it  not  ? 

I  could  not  then,  nor  can  I  now,  see  that 
Sandys  made  any  mistake.  I  give  here  a  question 
which  Sir  Lewis  evidently  considered  crucial, 
together  with  my  answer  : — 

Do  you  think  that  a  letter  written  under  the  circum- 
stances in  which  this  was  before  the  Act  was  printed 
when  he  had  not  got  access  to  it,  within  forty-eight  hours 
of  its  going  through  Parliament,  and  written,  as  I  observe 
he  says  at  the  end,  '  hastily '  (you  see  the  last  words  are 
'  hastily  at  London,  April  30th,  1559  '),  can  add  very  much 
weight  to  it  ? — I  do,  because  Sandys  was  a  very  important 
man.  He  was  accepted  by  the  authorities  as  the  most 
distinguished  leader  of  the  Puritan  Party ;  he  was  put  on 
the  Committe  for  revising  the  Second  Prayer  Book,  and 
it  is  quite  evident  that  he  watched  the  whole  process  and 
the  steps  of  it. 

Sandys,  Grindal,  and  other  Puritan  leaders 
were  in  London  at  the  time,  closely  watching  the 
progress  of  events  and  the  debates  in  Parliament, 
where  they  had  friends  and  allies.  Whether  the 
Act  was  printed  or  not  when  Sandys  wrote,  I 
have  no  doubt  that  he  had  access  to  it  and  was 


158     SANDYS  ON  FIRST  AND  SECOND  YEAR 

accurately  informed  of  its  contents.  He  actually 
quotes  the  Act.  Nor  does  his  reference  to  '  the 
first  and  second  year  of  King  Edward '  present  any 
difficulty  to  my  mind.  It  is  susceptible  of  various 
interpretations,  all  tenable.  (1)  He  might  have 
believed  with  ancient  writers,  like  Foxe,  Hay  ward, 
and  Heylin,  and  modern  writers  like  Cardwell  and 
Dixon,  that  the  Order  of  the  Communion  was 
based  on  1  Edw.  VI.  c.  1 ;  in  which  case  the 
'  authority  of  Parliament '  would  cover  both  the 
first  and  second  years.  Or  (2)  he  might  rely  on 
the  Parliamentary  authority  of  the  Injunctions  of 
1547  or  the  statutory  force  of  the  Acts  of  the 
Council  in  virtue  of  Henry  VIII. 's  will,  which 
would  also  cover  the  first  and  second  years.  But 
(3)  I  am  inclined  to  accept  Dr.  Gee's  view,  already 
quoted,  that,  '  if  Sandys  weighed  his  words  ' — 
which  he  must  have  done,  writing  as  he  did  to  the 
Primate — '  we  must  suppose  that  he  meant  the 
year  1548,  which  was  partly  first  and  partly  second, 
since  Edward  began  his  reign  on  January  28.  In 
that  case  Sandys's  explanation  of  the  proviso  is 
intelligible.  That  year  1548  had  its  own  legal 
ornaments.'  A  strong  point  in  favour  of  this 
view  is  Sandys's  use  of  the  singular,  *  the  first 
and  second  year '  instead  of  '  the  first  and  second 
years,'  which  he  would  probably  have  said  if  he 
meant  1547-1548.  Lastly,  Sandys  may  have  relied 
on  32  Hen.  VIII.  c.  26,  which,  as  I  hold,  gave 
Parliamentary  authority  to  the  Order  of  the  Com- 


SANDYS  ON  FIKST  AND  SECOND  YEAE     159 

munion ;  while,  on  the  other  hand,  a  rubric  in  the 
Order  of  the  Communion  sanctioned  the  ornaments 
of  the  first  as  well  as  of  the  second  year. 

I  now  respectfully  submit  that  I  have  proved 
not  only  that  the  Ornaments  Eubric  and  the  Act 
of  Uniformity  of  1559  cannot  refer  to  the  first 
Prayer-Book  of  Edward,  but,  in  addition,  that  they 
do  refer  to  the  Order  of  the  Communion.  That 
makes  everything  plain.  The  Order  of  the  Com- 
munion was  issued  on  Parliamentary  authority  on 
March  8,  1548.  So  that  the  second  year  covered 
both  the  usage  and  the  authority  of  Parliament ; 
and  Sandys  was,  on  any  reasonable  construction 
of  his  words,  justified  in  saying  that  the  ornaments 
sanctioned  were  the  ornaments  '  which  were  used 
in  the  first  and  second  year  of  King  Edward.'  The 
statement  is  literally  true. 

This  controversy,  however,  as  I  have  already 
observed,  is  literary  rather  than  liturgical.  For,  in 
matter  of  fact,  the  first  Prayer-Book  of  Edward 
forbade  no  ornaments  which  were  in  legal  use 
before.  It  was  not  a  directory  of  public  worship, 
and  only  enjoined  a  few  things  out  of  many  custo- 
mary usages. 

In  order  that  the  reader  may  have  all  the  facts 
before  him,  I  give,  in  Appendix  B  (p.  373),  the  Sec- 
tion of  1  Ed.  VI.  c.  12,  which  is  said  to  have 
repealed  32  Hen.  VIII.  c.  26.  It  is  plainly  not  a 
general  repeal  of  all  statutes  concerning  doctrine 
and  religion. 


CHAPTEE  XII 

THE    PRAYER-BOOK   OP    1649   NO   EXHAUSTIVE 
DIRECTORY   OF   PUBLIC   WORSHIP 

THE  only  ornaments  prescribed  by  the  Prayer- 
Book  of  1549  were  the  alb,  tunicle,  vestment  or 
cope,  surplice,  corporas,  paten,  chalice,  pastoral 
staff,  crisome  (chrisom)  in  baptism,  and  ring  in 
marriage.  There  is  no  mention  of  a  stole,  though 
it  was  undoubtedly  used  ceremonially  in  ordina- 
tions, the  Eucharist,  preaching,  baptisms.  There 
is  no  mention  of  altarcloths,  or  of  cross  or 
crucifix,  or  altar  lights,  ablutions,  or  the  places  at 
which  the  Gospel  and  Epistle  and  lessons  were  to 
be  read,  or  any  ceremonies  during  Divine  Service 
beyond  standing  and  kneeling.  The  Judicial  Com- 
mittee in  Westerton  v.  Liddell  admitted  that  the 
Prayer-Book  of  1549,  by  not  forbidding,  allowed 
ceremonies  and  ornaments  which  were  subsidiary 
to  Divine  Service,  though  not  mentioned  in  any 
rubric.  Indeed,  there  is  ample  evidence  to  show 
that  the  old  ceremonial  remained  under  Edward's 
first  Prayer-Book,  with  the  difference  only  of  the 
service  being  in  English  instead  of  Latin.  As  late 
as  the  year  1551  Bucer  writes  in  his  '  Censura  '  : — 


FIEST  BOOK  NOT  A  DIRECTOEY  161 

I  may  add  on  ceremonies  that  in  many  of  your 
churches  there  is  still  found  a  studied  representation  of 
the  execrated  Mass,  in  vestures,  lights,  bowings,  crossings, 
washing  of  the  cup,  breathing  on  the  bread  and  cup, 
carrying  the  book  from  right  to  left  of  the  table,  leaving 
the  table  where  the  altar  was,  lifting  the  paten  and  cup, 
and  adoration  paid  by  men  who  nevertheless  will  not 
communicate.  All  these  should  be  forbidden.1 

Clearly,  therefore,  they  were  not  forbidden,  or 
understood  to  be  forbidden,  by  the  book  of  1549, 
and  hence  the  violent  agitation  caused  by  the 
Puritans  for  the  revision  of  that  book. 

While  Bucer,  Paul  Fagius,  Peter  Martyr  and 
others  were  the  guests  of  Cranmer  at  Lambeth 
Palace  before  they  took  formal  possession  of  the 
University  chairs  which  the  Archbishop  had  pro- 
vided for  them,  Bucer  and  Fagius  wrote  to  their 
friends  at  Strasburg,  describing  as  follows  the  state 
of  religion  provided  by  the  new  Prayer-Book,  which 
had  not  yet  (i.e.  April  26,  1549)  come  into  use  :— 

As  soon  as  the  description  of  the  ceremonies  now  in 
use  shall  have  been  translated  into  Latin  we  will  send  it 
to  you.  "We  hear  that  some  concessions  [to  the  Catholic 
party]  have  been  made  both  to  a  respect  for  antiquity, 
and  to  the  infirmity  of  the  present  age ;  such,  for  instance, 
as  the  vestments  commonly  used  in  the  Sacrament  of  the 
Eucharist,  and  the  use  of  candles  2 :  so  also  in  regard  to 

1  See  Censura,  ch.  xxvii.     When  Bucer  published  his  Censura  he 
had  been  for  nearly  two  years  in  England  as  Eegius  Professor  of 
Divinity  at  Cambridge,  where  he  died  soon  afterwards.     His  informa- 
tion was  thus  at  first-hand. 

2  Which  were  not  prescribed  in   the   first   Prayer-Book.     This 
proves  the  fallacy  of  the  Judicial  Committee's  decision  that  omission 
is  prohibition. 

M 


162  AUTHOEITIES  QUOTED 

the  commemoration  of  the  dead  and  the  use  of  chrism  ; 
for  we  know  not  to  what  extent  or  in  what  sort  it 
prevails.1 

Hooper,  writing  to  Bullinger  on  December  27, 
1549  (that  is,  some  six  months  after  the  statutory 
date  of  the  use  of  the  Prayer-Book),  says  :— 

The  public  celebration  of  the  Lord's  Supper  is  very 
far  from  the  order  and  institution  of  our  Lord.  Although 
it  is  administered  in  both  kinds,  yet  in  some  places  the 
Supper  is  celebrated  three  times  a  day.  Where  they 
used  heretofore  to  celebrate  in  the  morning  the  Mass 
of  the  Apostles,  they  now  have  the  Communion  of  the 
Apostles ;  where  they  had  the  Mass  of  the  Blessed  Virgin, 
they  now  have  the  Communion  of  the  Blessed  Virgin ; 
where  they  had  the  principal  or  High  Mass,  they  now 
have,  as  they  call  it,  the  High  Communion.  They  still 
retain  their  vestments  and  the  candles  before  the  altars. 
In  the  churches  they  always  chant  the  hours  and  other 
hymns  relating  to  the  Lord's  Supper,2  but  in  our  own 
language.  And  that  Popery  may  not  be  lost,  the  mass- 
priests,  although  they  are  compelled  to  discontinue  the 
use  of  the  Latin  language,  yet  most  carefully  observe 
the  same  tone  and  manner  of  chanting  to  which  they 
were  heretofore  accustomed  in  the  Papacy.  God  knows 
to  what  perils  and  anxieties  we  are  exposed  by  reason  of 
men  of  this  kind.3 

In  another  letter,  dated  March  27, 1550,  Hooper 
says : — 

It  is  no  small  hindrance  to  our  exertions  that  the 
form  which  our  Senate  or  Parliament,  as  we  commonly 

1  Original  Letters  :  Letter  248,  p.  535. 

2  Ibid.  Letter  36,  p.  72. 

s  Another  proof  that  omission  is  not  prohibition. 


THE  PURITANS  UNPOPULAR  IN  1549       163 

call  it,  has  prescribed  for  the  whole  realm  is  so  very 
defective  and  of  doubtful  construction,  and  in  some 
respects  indeed  manifestly  impious.1 

But  the  returned  exiles,  who  tried  hard  to  re- 
construct the  English  Reformation  on  the  model 
of  that  of  Geneva,  admitted  that  popular  opinion 
and  feeling  in  England  were  against  them.  I  have 
already  quoted  the  admission  of  two  of  them  in  the 
beginning  of  Elizabeth's  reign,  that  they  were  '  a 
tiny  flock.'  They  were  tinier  still  in  the  reign  of 
Edward  VI.  Hooper,  writing  to  Bullinger  in 
February  1550,  says  :  '  The  people  however,  that 
many-headed  monster,  is  still  wincing '  at  the 
innovations  urged  by  the  Puritans  ;  '  partly  through 
ignorance,  and  partly  fascinated  by  the  inveigle- 
ments of  the  bishops  and  the  malice  and  impiety 
of  the  mass-priests.' 2  And  Dryander,  writing  from 
Cambridge  just  before  the  day  fixed  for  the  general 
use  of  the  first  Prayer-Book,  says  :  '  But  this  is 
the  fate  of  the  Church,  that  the  majority  over- 
power the  better  part ;  and  though  many  things 
may  be  improved,  there  are  nevertheless  some 
causes  of  offence  still  remaining.' 3 

Indeed,  the  Puritan  leaders  were  in  personal 
danger  from  the  popular  feeling  against  them. 
Hooper  writes  on  March  27,  1550  : — 

I  have  not  yet  visited  my  native  place  [Somerset], 
being  prevented  partly  by  the  danger  of  rebellion  and 
tumult  in  those  quarters,  and  partly  by  the  command 

1  Original  Letters :  p.  79.  »  Ibid.  p.  76.  3  Ibid.  p.  351. 

MS 


164  USE  OF  FIEST  PKAYER-BOOK 

of  the  King  that  I  should  advance  the  Kingdom  of  Christ 
here  in  London  :  nor  indeed  am  I  yet  able  to  stir  even 
a  single  mile  from  the  city  without  numerous  attendance.1 

In  the  diocese  of  Durham  and  in  other  parts  of 
the  North  of  England  neither  Edward's  first  Prayer- 
Book  nor  his  second  came  into  use  at  all.  Indeed, 
the  second  had  hardly  time  to  come  into  use  any- 
where. For  this  John  Knox  appears  to  have  been 
mainly  responsible.  He  had  been  appointed 
chaplain  to  Edward  VI.,  and  in  that  capacity 
preached  before  the  Court  and  the  King's  Council 
in  the  autumn  of  1552.  He  took  for  his  subject 
the  newly  inserted  Kubric  in  the  second  Prayer- 
Book,  enjoining  kneeling  at  the  reception  of  the 
Holy  Communion.  Knox  denounced  the  Eubric 
and  the  ceremony,  and  urged  what  he  regarded  as 
the  Scriptural  custom  of  sitting  round  a  table.  His 
sermon  made  a  great  stir,  and  was  joyfully  greeted 
by  Utenhovius,  a  Dutch  gentleman,  at  that  time 
Elder  of  the  Protestant  community  of  foreigners 
established  in  London  in  1550  by  John  a-Lasco. 
The  King  granted  them  the  church  of  Austin  Friars 
in  the  City,  with  freedom  of  worship  except  on  one 
point — namely,  that  in  their  administration  of  the 
Lord's  Supper  they  should  conform  to  the  custom 
of  kneeling.  Both  Cranmer  and  Eidley  insisted  on 
this  as  a  sine  qua  non.  Hence  the  natural  aspira- 
tion of  Utenhovius  in  the  following  passage  de- 
scribing the  effect  produced  by  Knox's  sermon : — 

1  Original  Letters :  p.  79. 


NOT  UNIVEESAL  165 

Some  disputes  have  arisen  within  these  few  days 
among  the  bishops  in  consequence  of  a  sermon  of  a  pious 
preacher,  chaplain  to  the  Duke  of  Northumberland, 
preached  by  him  before  the  King  and  Council,  in  which 
he  inveighed  with  great  freedom  against  kneeling  at  the 
Lord's  Supper,  which  is  still  retained  here  by  the  English. 
This  good  man,  however,  a  Scotsman  by  nation,  has  so 
wrought  upon  the  minds  of  many  persons  that  we  may 
hope  some  good  to  the  Church  will  at  length  arise  from 
it ;  which  I  earnestly  implore  our  Lord  to  grant.1 

Knox's  sermon  and  private  colloquies  had  the 
effect  of  opening  again  the  question  of  kneeling  at 
the  reception  of  the  Holy  Communion.  The  King 
and  some  of  the  Council  favoured  Knox's  doctrine, 
and  Cranmer  was  approached  with  a  view  to 
winning  him  over  to  the  side  of  the  innovators. 
But  the  Archbishop,  for  once,  stood  firm  against 
Royal  and  Court  influence,  and  Knox,  despairing 
of  persuading  him,  fired  of  his  inflammatory 
sermon.  I  have  on  a  previous  page  made  a  quo- 
tation from  Cranmer 's  indignant  letter  to  the 
Council,  but  the  whole  letter  is  worth  quoting  : — 

After  my  humble  commendations  unto  your  Lord- 
ships ;  whereas  I  understand  by  your  Lordships'  letters 
that  the  King's  Majesty's  pleasure  is  that  the  Book  of 
Common  Service  should  be  diligently  perused,  and  therein 
the  printers'  errors  to  be  amended,  I  shall  travel  therein 
to  the  very  uttermost  of  my  power,  albeit  I  had  need 
first  to  have  had  the  Book  written  which  was  passed  by 
Act  of  Parliament  sealed  with  the  great  seal,  which 

1  Original  Letters :  p.  591.  Letter  written  to  Bullinger,  dated 
Oct.  12, 1552. 


166  CRANMER  ON  PURITANISM 

remaineth  in  the  hands  of  Mr.  Spilman,  clerk  of  the  Par- 
liament, who  is  not  in  London,  nor  I  cannot  learn  where 
he  is.  Nevertheless,  I  have  gotten  the  copy  which  Mr. 
Spilman  delivered  to  the  printers  to  print  by,  which  I 
think  shall  serve  well  enough. 

And  whereas  I  understand  farther  by  your  Lordships' 
letters  that  some  be  offended  with  kneeling  at  the  time 
of  the  receiving  of  the  Sacrament,  and  would  that  I 
calling  to  see  the  Bishop  of  London,  and  some  other 
learned  men,  as  Mr.  Peter  Martyr  or  such  like,  should 
with  them  expend  and  weigh  the  said  prescription  of 
kneeling,  whether  it  be  fit  to  remain  as  a  Commandment, 
or  to  be  left  out  of  the  Book,  I  shall  accomplish  the 
King's  Majesty  his  commandment,  albeit  I  trust  that  we 
with  just  balance,  weighed  this  at  the  making  of  the  Book, 
and  not  only  we  but  a  great  many  bishops  and  other  of 
the  best  learned  men  within  this  realm,  and  appointed 
for  that  purpose.  And  now,  the  Book  being  read  and 
approved  by  the  whole  State  of  the  realm  in  the  High 
Court  of  Parliament,  with  the  King's  Majesty  his  royal 
assent,  that  this  should  be  now  altered  again  without 
Parliament,  of  what  importance  this  matter  is  I  refer  to 
your  Lordships'  wisdom  to  consider.  I  know  your  Lord- 
ships' wisdom  to  be  such  that  I  trust  ye  will  not  be  moved 
by  those  glorious  and  unquiet  spirits,  which  can  like 
nothing  but  that  is  after  their  own  fancy,  and  cease  not 
to  make  trouble  and  disquietness  when  things  be  most 
quiet  and  in  good  order.  If  such  men  should  be  heard, 
although  the  Book  were  made  every  year  anew,  yet 
should  it  not  lack  faults  in  their  opinion. 

But,  say  they,  it  is  not  commanded  in  the  Scripture 
to  kneel,  and  whatsoever  is  not  commanded  in  the  Scrip- 
ture is  against  the  Scripture,  and  utterly  unlawful  and 
ungodly.  But  this  saying  is  the  chief  foundation  of  the 
error  of  the  Anabaptists  and  of  divers  other  sects.  This 
saying  is  a  subversion  of  all  order  as  well  in  religion  as  in 


CEANMEB  ON  PURITANISM  167 

common  policy.  If  this  saying  be  true,  take  away  the 
whole  Book  of  Service.  For  what  should  men  travail  to 
set  an  order  in  the  form  of  Service  if  no  order  can  be  set 
but  that  is  already  prescribed  by  the  Scripture?  And 
because  I  will  not  trouble  your  Lordships  with  reciting  of 
many  Scriptures  or  proofs  in  this  matter,  whosoever 
teacheth  any  such  doctrine  (if  your  Lordships  will  give 
me  leave)  I  will  set  my  foot  by  his  to  be  tried  by  fire,  that 
his  doctrine  is  untrue,  and  not  only  untrue  but  also 
seditious,  and  perilous  to  be  heard  of  any  subjects,  as  a 
thing  breaking  the  bridle  of  obedience  and  loosing  them 
from  the  bond  of  all  princes'  laws. 

My  good  Lordships,  I  pray  you  to  consider  that  there 
be  two  prayers  which  go  before  the  receiving  of  the 
Sacrament,  and  two  immediately  follow,  all  which  time 
the  people,  praying  and  giving  thanks,  do  kneel,  and  what 
inconvenience  there  is  that  it  may  not  be  thus  ordered 
I  know  not.  If  the  kneeling  of  the  people  should  be  dis- 
continued for  the  time  of  the  receiving  of  the  Sacrament, 
so  that  at  the  receipt  thereof  they  should  rise  up  and  stand 
or  sit,  and  then  immediately  kneel  down  again,  it  should 
rather  import  a  contemptuous  than  a  reverent  receiving 
of  the  Sacrament.  But  it  is  not  expressly  contained  in 
the  Scripture,  say  they,  that  Christ  ministered  the  Sacra- 
ment to  His  Apostles  kneeling.  Nor  they  find  it  not 
expressly  in  Scripture  that  He  ministered  it  standing  or 
sitting  ;  but  if  we  will  follow  the  plain  words  of  Scripture 
we  shall  rather  receive  it  lying  down  on  the  ground,  as 
the  custom  of  the  world  at  that  time  almost  everywhere, 
and  as  the  Tartars  and  Turks  use  yet  at  this  day  to  eat 
their  meat  lying  down  upon  the  ground.  And  the  words 
of  the  Evangelist  import  the  same,  which  be  avaKSLfiai 
and  avaTriTTTO),  which  signify  properly  to  be  down  upon 
the  floor  or  ground,  and  not  to  sit  upon  a  form  or  stool. 
And  the  same  speech  use  the  Evangelists  when  they  show 
that  Christ  fed  five  thousand  with  five  loaves,  where  it  is 


168  SECOND  PKAYER-BOOK 

plainly  expressed  that  they  sat  down  upon  the  ground  and 
not  upon  stools. 

I  beseech  your  Lordships  to  take  in  good  part  this 
my  long  babbling,  which  I  wrote  as  of  myself  only, 
because  the  Bishop  of  London  is  not  yet  come,  and  your 
Lordships  required  an  answer  with  speed ;  and  therefore 
am  I  constrained  to  make  some  answer  to  your  Lordships 
afore  his  coming.  And  thus  I  pray  God  long  to  preserve 
your  Lordships,  and  to  increase  the  same  in  all  prosperity 
and  goodness.  At  Lambeth  this  Vlllth  of  October,  1552. 
Your  Lordships'  to  command, 

T.  CANTR. 

The  printing  of  the  second  Prayer-Book  had 
been  stopped  a  fortnight  previously  for  press  cor- 
rections, as  the  following  entry  in  the  Eegister  of 
the  Privy  Council  will  show : — 

A  letter  to  Grafton  the  printer  to  stop  in  any  wise 
from  uttering  any  of  the  books  of  the  new  Service,  and  if 
he  have  distributed  any  of  them  amongst  his  company 
[retail  trade]  that  then  to  give  strait  commandment  to 
every  of  them  not  to  put  any  of  them  abroad  until  certain 
faults  therein  be  corrected. 

Cranmer's  letter  shows  that  the  hope  of  getting 
the  Eubric  on  kneeling  expunged  from  the  second 
Prayer-Book  was  an  additional  reason  for  arresting 
the  printing  and  sale  of  the  book.  Cranmer's 
firmness  defeated  so  far  the  policy  of  Knox  and  the 
Puritan  innovators.  But  the  delay  left  a  narrow 
margin  for  the  legal  introduction  of  the  second 
Prayer-Book,  which  was,  by  the  Act  of  Unifor- 
mity, to  take  place  on  All  Saints'  Day.  The 


USED  VEEY  PAETIALLY  169 

Declaration  on  kneeling  hung  in  suspended  ani- 
mation till  October  27,  when  it  was  added  to  the 
Prayer-Book  by  order  of  the  King  in  Council  just 
in  time  to  allow  the  Prayer  Book  to  come  into 
legal  use  on  the  appointed  day.  But  it  is  evident 
that  there  was  no  time  to  distribute,  or  even  to 
print  and  bind,  fresh  copies  of  the  Book  before 
All  Saints'  Day;  and  the  copies  used  in  a  few 
churches  in  the  metropolis  were  some  of  the 
copies  already  printed  and  bound,  with  a  separate 
leaf,  which  interrupted  the  pagination,  gummed  in, 
containing  the  Declaration  on  kneeling.1  The 
King's  fatal  illness  seized  him  soon  after  this,  and 
the  uncertainty  about  the  succession  gave  the 
leading  authorities  in  Church  and  State  other 
things  to  think  of  than  the  comparative  merits 
of  the  two  Prayer-Books.  It  is  probable  that  the 
second  Book  was  never  used  except  in  a  few 
churches  in  London  and  the  neighbourhood.  At 
a  meeting  of  the  Council  on  October  20,  at  which 
Cranmer  was  present,  there  is  a  memorandum  in 
the  handwriting  of  Cecil  in  which  there  is  a  signi- 
ficant reference,  'Ye  book  in  ye  B.  of  Durhm.' 
I  agree  with  Professor  Lorimer  that  this  note 
1  refers  to  a  proposal  to  introduce  the  new  Book 
of  Common  Prayer  into  the  diocese  of  Durham, 
where  no  reformed  Prayer-Book  had  ever  been  as 
yet  [October  1552]  used.'2 

1  A  few  copies  of  this  impression  with  the  intercalated  leaf  are  still 
extant.  2  John  Knox  and  the  Church  of  England,  pp.  29,  107. 


170  THE  PKIMAEY  CAUSE  OF 

During  Edward  VI.'s  reign,  then,  the  cere- 
monial of  public  worship  appears  to  have  been 
somewhat  as  follows.  The  first  Prayer-Book  was 
not  used  at  all  in  a  considerable  portion  of  the 
kingdom :  Divine  Service  was  conducted  as  in  the 
latter  part  of  Henry  VIII. 's  reign.  And  where 
the  first  Prayer  Book  was  used  the  ceremonial  of 
the  Latin  Service  was  continued  in  the  English 
Service.  The  evidence  which  I  have  quoted,  and 
which  might  easily  be  enlarged,  seems  to  put  this 
beyond  a  doubt.  On  the  other  hand,  the  second 
Book  fell  still-born.  There  was  no  time  for  its 
general  use  before  the  King  sickened  to  death,  and 
in  the  interval  the  critical  state  of  the  nation, 
politically,  diverted  men's  minds  from  the  contro- 
versy about  ceremonial. 

But  it  may  be  objected  :  If  that  is  so,  there  was 
in  reality  no  Eeformation  at  all  under  the  last 
Tudor  sovereigns. 

The  answer  is  that  in  its  initial  stages  the 
English  Eeformation  was  much  more  a  political 
than  a  theological  movement ;  the  professed  and 
actual  aim  of  the  Keformers  being  to  liberate  the 
Church  and  nation  from  the  usurpations  and  in- 
termeddling of  the  Pope.  The  native  Reformers, 
as  distinct  from  the  Helvetian  Eeformers  and 
their  English  pupils,  disclaimed  all  intention  to 
set  up  a  new  church,  or  creed,  or  ceremonial, 
further  than  by  the  abolition  of  certain  abuses  and 
superstitions,  accretions  which  had  in  the  course 


THE  KEFOKMATION  171 

of  time  become  mingled  with  the  ancient  ritual  of 
the  Church  of  England.  Both  clergy  and  laity 
appealed  to  the  Church  of  the  (Ecumenical 
Councils  as  the  standard  of  faith  and  worship. 
There  is  no  need  to  multiply  authorities :  the 
following  representative  names  may  suffice. 

No  man  of  our  time  studied  the  history  of  the 
Eeformation  with  a  more  unbiased  mind,  a  more 
minute  care,  or  a  more  comprehensive  grasp  and 
knowledge  of  the  subject  than  Mr.  Gladstone.  He 
was  singularly  well  equipped  for  the  task.  To  a 
wide  and  accurate  range  of  reading  he  added  a 
remarkable  aptitude  for  theological  and  legal 
studies,  and  his  eristic  discipline  in  the  House  of 
Commons  made  him  sharp  to  detect  a  flaw  in  an 
argument.  Brought  up  an  Evangelical,  he  began 
his  special  study  of  the  Eeformation  with  a  mind 
biased,  as  far  as  it  was  biased  at  all,  in  that  direc- 
tion. Having  no  foregone  conclusion  to  uphold, 
he  kept  his  mind  open  to  such  light  as  an  im- 
partial study  of  facts  might  shed  upon  it.  And 
this  is  his  judgment  upon  the  subject : — 

With  us  the  question  lay  simply  between  the  nation 
and  the  Pope  of  Home,  and  its  first  form  as  a  religious 
question  had  reference  purely  to  his  supremacy.  .  .  . 
That  the  question  of  the  English  Eeformation  was 
eminently  and  especially  national ;  that  it  was  raised  as 
between  this  island  of  the  free  on  the  one  hand,  and  an 
'  Italian  priest '  on  the  other,  is  a  remarkable  truth  which 
derives  equally  remarkable  illustrations  from  our  history. 
The  main  subject  of  contention  between  the  State  and 


172          AUTHOEITIES  QUOTED  IN  PEOOF 

the  Bomanists,  or  recusants  as  they  were  called,  was  not 
their  adhesion  to  this  or  that  Popish  doctrine,  but  their 
acknowledgment  of  an  unnational  and  anti-national  head. 
To  meet  this  case  the  oath  of  supremacy  was  framed. 
.  .  .  The  British  Government  required  of  its  subjects 
the  renunciation,  not  of  the  Popish  doctrines,  but  of  the 
ecclesiastical  supremacy  of  the  Pope.  ...  It  was  not 
the  existing  Church  as  a  religious  institution,  but  the 
secular  ambition  of  the  Papal  See,  against  which  security 
was  sought  by  renouncing  its  jurisdiction.1 

Newman's  bias,  after  he  became  a  Eoman 
Catholic,  would  have  been  to  make  the  most  of 
the  religions  question  as  the  motive  cause  of  the 
Eeformation.  But  he  was  an  honest  man  and  had 
studied  the  question  conscientiously,  and  this  is 
his  conclusion  : — 

Not  any  religious  doctrine  at  all,  but  a  political 
principle,  was  the  primary  English  idea  at  that  time 
[reign  of  Elizabeth]  of  '  Popery.'  And  what  was  that 
principle,  and  how  could  it  best  be  kept  out  of  England  ? 
What  was  the  great  question  in  the  days  of  Henry  and 
Elizabeth?  The  Supremacy.  .  .  .  Did  Henry  VIII.  re- 
ligiously hold  justification  by  faith  only?  Did  he  dis- 
believe Purgatory?  Was  Elizabeth  zealous  for  the 
marriage  of  the  clergy  ?  or  had  she  a  conscience  against 
the  Mass  ?  The  supremacy  of  the  Pope  was  the  essence 
of  the  '  Popery  '  to  which,  at  the  time  of  the  Articles,  the 
Supreme  Head  or  Governor  of  the  English  Church  was 
so  violently  hostile.2 

Freeman  had  a  religious  devotion  to  the  virtue 
of  historical  accuracy,  and  he  comes  to  the  same 

1  The  State  in  its  Relations  with  the  CJmrch,  pp.  174,  189-90. 

2  Apologia,  p.  162.     The  italics  are  Newman's. 


AUTHOEITIES  QUOTED  IN  PEOOF  173 

conclusion  as   Mr.  Gladstone  and  Cardinal  New- 
man : — 

Nothing  was  further  from  the  mind  of  either 
Henry  the  Eighth  or  of  Elizabeth  than  that  either  of 
them  was  doing  anything  new.  Neither  of  them  ever 
thought  for  a  moment  of  establishing  a  new  Church  or 
of  establishing  anything  at  all.  In  their  own  eyes  they 
were  not  establishing,  but  reforming ;  they  were  neither 
pulling  down  nor  setting  up,  but  simply  putting  to-rights. 
They  were  getting  rid  of  innovations  and  corruptions ; 
they  were  casting  off  an  usurped  foreign  jurisdiction,  and 
restoring  to  the  Crown  its  ancient  authority  over  the 
State  ecclesiastical.1 

The  late  Dr.  Brewer  edited,  with  learned  intro- 
ductions, several  of  the  volumes  published  under 
the  auspices  of  the  Master  of  the  Eolls.  His 
introduction  to  the  papers  relating  to  the  reign 
of  Henry  VIII.  makes  a  goodly  quarto  volume  of 
572  pages.  He  had  studied  the  history  of  the 
sixteenth  and  seventeenth  centuries  with  great 
care,  and  he  agrees  in  the  main  with  the  autho- 
rities already  cited : — 

But  the  Reformation  did  not  owe  its  origin  to  Tyndal 
or  to  Parliament,  to  the  corruptions  of  the  clergy,  or  to 
oppression  of  the  Ecclesiastical  Courts.  There  is  no 
reason  to  suppose  that  the  nation  as  a  whole  was  dis- 
contented with  the  old  religion.  Facts  point  to  the 
opposite  conclusion.  .  .  .  Nor,  considering  the  temper  of 
the  English  people,  is  it  probable  that  immorality  could 
have  existed  among  the  ancient  clergy  to  the  degree 
which  the  exaggeration  of  poets,  preachers,  and  satirists 

1  Disestablishment  and  Disendowment,  p.  38. 


174  AUTHOBITIES  QUOTED  IN  PEOOF 

might  lead  us  to  suppose.  The  existence  of  such  cor- 
ruption is  not  justified  by  authentic  documents,  or  by  an 
impartial  or  broad  estimate  of  the  character  and  conduct 
of  the  nation  before  the  Reformation.  .  .  .  But  though 
the  Reformation  advanced  no  further  [than  the  abolition 
of  Papal  Supremacy]  in  the  reign  of  Henry  VIII.,  and 
he  still  maintained  the  rites,  ceremonies,  and  doctrines  of 
the  ancient  faith,  it  was  already  in  his  reign  irrevocably 
established.1 

Macaulay's  summing  up  of  the  Eeformation 
period  is  strongly  biased  against  the  High  Church 
school.  But  he,  too,  makes  the  supremacy  the 
testing  question.  Elizabeth  as  well  as  Henry  VIII., 

he  says, 

certainly  had  no  objection  to  the  theology  of  Rome. 
The  Royal  supremacy  was  to  supersede  the  Papal ;  but 
the  Catholic  doctrines  and  rites  were  to  be  retained  in 
the  Church  of  England.  .  .  .  Elizabeth  clearly  discerned  the 
advantages  which  were  to  be  derived  from  a  close  connec- 
tion between  the  monarchy  and  the  priesthood.  At  the 
time  of  her  accession,  indeed,  she  evidently  meditated  a 
partial  reconciliation  with  Rome ;  and  throughout  her 
whole  life  she  leaned  strongly  to  some  of  the  most 
obnoxious  parts  of  the  Catholic  system.2 

Hallam  is  recognised  as  one  of  the  most  dis- 
passionate and  judicial  of  our  writers  on  history. 
I  quote  the  following  passage  both  because  he 
supports  the  conclusions  of  the  preceding  autho- 
rities and  also  confirms  the  reasonableness  of 


Letters  and  Papers,  Foreign  and  Domestic,  Henry  VIII.,  iv.  551. 
Essays,  i.  181,  133. 


ELIZABETH'S  OWN  ANSWEE  175 

Elizabeth's  wish  to  '  establish  religion  as  it  had 
been  left  by  her  father ' : — 

In  fact  no  scheme  of  religion  would  on  the  whole 
have  been  so  acceptable  to  the  nation  as  that  which 
Henry  left  established,  consisting  chiefly  of  what  was 
called  Catholic  in  doctrine,  but  free  from  the  grosser 
abuses  and  from  all  connection  with  the  see  of  Rome. 
Arbitrary  and  capricious  as  that  King  was,  he  carried  the 
people  along  with  him,  as  I  believe,  in  all  great  points, 
both  as  to  what  he  renounced  and  what  he  retained.1 

But  we  are  not  dependent  on  second-hand 
testimony  for  our  knowledge  of  the  position  taken 
up  by  Elizabeth  :  her  own  words  are  on  record.  In 
her  Admonitions  of  1559  she  declares  that  she 
'  neither  doth  nor  ever  will  challenge  any  other 
authority  than  that  was  challenged  and  lately 
used  by  the  noble  kings  of  famous  memory,  King 
Henry  VIII.  and  King  Edward  VI.,  which  is,  and 
was  of  ancient  time,  due  to  the  Imperial  Crown  of 
this  Eealm.'  And  again,  on  the  suppression  of  the 
northern  rebellion,  the  Queen  published  a  procla- 
mation in  which  she  said — 

that  she  claimed  no  other  ecclesiastical  authority  than 
had  been  due  to  her  predecessors ;  that  she  pretended 
no  right  to  define  articles  of  faith,  or  to  change  ancient 
ceremonies  formerly  adopted  by  the  Catholic  and 
Apostolic  Church  .  .  . ;  but  that  she  conceived  it  her 
duty  to  take  care  that  all  estates  under  her  rule  should 
live  in  the  faith  and  obedience  of  the  Christian  religion  ; 
to  see  all  laws  ordained  for  that  end  duly  observed ;  and 

1  Const.  Hist.  i.  143. 


176  ELIZABETH'S  OWN  ANSWER 

to  provide  that  the  Church  be  governed  by  archbishops, 
bishops,  and  ministers. 

And  she  went  on  to  assure  her  people  that  she 
meant  not 

to  molest  them  for  religious  opinions  provided  they  did 
not  gainsay  the  Scriptures,  or  the  Creeds  Apostolic  and 
Catholic,  nor  for  matters  of  religious  ceremony  as  long 
as  they  should  outwardly  conform  to  the  laws  of  the 
realm,  which  enforced  the  frequentation  of  Divine 
Service  in  the  ordinary  churches.1 

These  quotations  show  plainly  what  Elizabeth 
intended  by  the  Ornaments  Eubric  and  the  Orna- 
ments clause  in  her  Act  of  Uniformity.  She 
intended,  as  she  told  the  Spanish  ambassador,  to 
restore  religion  as  it  was  left  by  her  father.  We 
have  already  seen  what  that  was. 

1  Lingard,  v.  295. 


CHAPTEE  XIII 

DR.    GIBSON    ON    THE    LAST    YEAR   OF    HENET   VIII.    AND 
THE   FIRST   AND    SECOND   YEARS    OF    EDWARD   VI. 

LET  me  now  deal  with  another  part  of  Dr.  Gibson's 
cross-examination  of  me,  leaving  the  reader  to 
draw  his  own  conclusions  : — 

You  do  not  seem  to  me  to  realise  [he  said]  the  extra- 
ordinary difference  there  was  between  the  last  year  of 
Henry  VIII.  and  the  first  and  second  years  of 
Edward  VI. 

But  '  religion  as  left  by  her  father '  included  what  is 
commonly  known  as  the  Whip  with  Six  Strings,  or  some- 
times referred  to  as  the  Bloody  Statute  of  the  Six 
Articles.  And  you  know  what  that  meant.  And  it  also 
included  the  whole  system  of  chantries,  and  included 
hardly  any  service  in  English — a  little,  but  that  is  all. 

I  might  have  objected  to  part  of  this  as  irre- 
levant. For  the  question  on  which  the  Royal 
Commission  invited  me  to  give  evidence  was  the 
meaning  of  '  the  second  year '  in  the  Ornaments 
Rubric,  and  that  has  to  do  with  the  ritual  obser- 
vances of  public  worship  only.  It  has  nothing  to 
do  with  the  Act  of  Six  Articles  or  the  system  of 
Chantries.  And  when  Elizabeth  told  the  Spanish 


178  EELIGIOUS  CHANGES  IN   1547-9 

ambassador  that  she  intended  to  '  restore  religion 
as  left  by  her  father,'  it  is  clear  from  the  context 
that  she  was  thinking  of  the  Eucharist  and  its 
exhibition  in  the  ceremonial  of  public  worship. 
And  she  repeated,  in  the  document  which  I  have 
just  quoted,  what  she  had  said  to  the  Spanish 
ambassador.  She  promised  not  to  change  *  the 
Creeds  Apostolic  and  Catholic,'  *  or  ancient  cere- 
monies formerly  adopted  by  the  Catholic  and 
Apostolic  Church.'  But  I  preferred  to  make  no 
technical  objection  to  the  line  of  argument  some- 
times adopted  by  my  cross-examiners,  reserving 
to  myself  the  right  of  examining  its  validity  else- 
where, as  I  have  been  doing  thus  far.  I  will  now 
examine  the  quotations  which  I  have  made  above 
from  the  official  report  of  Dr.  Gibson's  cross- 
examination. 

His  reference  to  the  Whip  with  Six  Strings  is 
not  quite  accurate.  True,  it  was  still  on  the 
Statute  Book  at  the  death  of  Henry  VIII.,  but 
in  a  greatly  modified  form.  It  had  its  fangs  drawn  by 
35  Hen.  VIII.  c.  5,  which  forbade  any  trial  under 
it  except  on  presentments  or  accusations  made  on 
the  oaths  of  twelve  men  or  more,  and  within  a  year 
of  the  alleged  offence.  This  made  the  statute  of 
the  Six  Articles  as  harmless  practically  as  the  writ 
de  heretico  comburendo  years  before  its  repeal  in 
the  reign  of  Charles  II.  I  believe  that  no  prose- 
cutions took  place  under  the  statute  of  the  Six 
Articles  after  35  Hen.  VIII.  c.  5. 


APPEAL  TO  FACTS  179 

Dr.  Gibson  was  quite  right  in  saying  that  I  '  do 
not  seem  to  be  aware  of  the  extraordinary  difference 
there  was  between  the  last  year  of  Henry  VIII.  and 
the  first  and  second  years  of  Edward  VI.'  For 
authentic  history  knows  nothing  of  such  '  extra- 
ordinary difference.'  The  question,  let  it  be  re- 
membered, concerns  the  mode  of  public  worship, 
which  remained  during  the  first  and  second  years 
of  Edward  substantially  as  it  had  been  in  the  last 
year  of  Henry  VIII.,  except  that  the  Latin  Mass 
was  supplemented  by  the  Order  of  the  Communion, 
which  prohibited  the  elevation  at  the  Canon.  Not 
only  did  the  old  ceremonies  remain,  but  they  were 
forbidden  to  be  changed  or  omitted.  One  of  the 
Injunctions  of  1547  asks :  '  Whether  they  bid  the 
beads  according  to  the  order  of  our  late  sovereign 
lord  King  Henry  VIII.'  Another  asks  :  '  Whether 
in  their  Masses  they  use  not  the  collects  made  for 
the  King  and  make  not  special  mention  of  his 
Majesty's  name  in  the  same.'  Another:  'Whether 
any  person  hath  obstinately  and  maliciously,  with- 
out a  just  and  reasonable  cause,  broken  the 
laudable  ceremonies  of  the  Church  commanded  to 
be  observed,  or  superstitiously  abused  the  same.' 
'  Whether  Matins,  Mass,  and  Evensong  be  kept  at 
due  hours  in  the  Church.'  That  alone  is  a  direct 
sanction  of  the  Church  Services  and  ceremonial 
as  they  were  left  at  the  death  of  Henry  VIII. 

A  subsequent  Proclamation  in  Edward's  second 
year,  quoted  in  part  already,  ordained  as  follows  : — 

v  2 


180  EITUAL  USAGE  SANCTIONED 

The  King's  Highness  by  the  advice  of  his  most 
entirely  beloved  uncle  the  Duke  of  Somerset,  Governor  of 
his  most  Eoyal  Person,  and  Protector  of  all  his  realms, 
dominions  and  subjects,  and  others  of  his  Council,  consider- 
ing nothing  so  much  to  tend  to  the  disquieting  of  his  realm 
as  diversity  of  opinions  and  variety  of  rites  and  cere- 
monies concerning  religion  and  worshipping  of  Almighty 
God ;  and  therefore  studying  all  the  ways  and  means, 
which  can  be,  to  direct  this  Church  and  the  cure  com- 
mitted to  his  Highness,  in  one  and  most  true  doctrine  rite 
and  usage :  yet  is  advertised  that  certain  private  curates, 
preachers,  and  other  laymen,  contrary  to  their  bounden 
duties  of  obedience,  do  rashly  attempt  of  their  own  and 
singular  wit  and  mind,  in  some  parish  churches  and 
otherwise,  not  only  to  persuade  the  people  from  the  old 
and  accustomed  rites  and  ceremonies,  but  also  themselves 
bring  in  new  and  strange  orders  every  one  in  their  church 
according  to  their  fantasies  ;  the  which,  as  it  is  an 
evident  token  of  pride  and  arrogancy,  so  it  tendeth  both 
to  confusion  and  disorder,  and  also  to  the  high  displeasure 
of  Almighty  God,  who  loveth  nothing  so  much  as  order 
and  obedience.  Whereupon  his  Majesty  strictly  chargeth 
and  commandeth  that  no  manner  person,  of  what  estate, 
order,  or  degree  soever  he  be,  of  his  private  mind,  will,  or 
fantasy,  do  omit,  leave  done,  change,  alter,  or  innovate 
any  order,  rite  or  ceremony,  commonly  used  and  fre- 
quented in  the  Church  of  England,  and  not  commanded 
to  be  left  done  at  any  time  in  the  reign  of  our  late 
sovereign  Lord,  his  Highness's  father,  other  than  such  as 
his  Highness,  by  the  advice  aforesaid,  by  his  Majesty's 
Visitors,  Injunctions,  Statutes  or  Proclamations  hath 
already  or  hereafter  shall  be  commanded  to  be  omitted, 
left,  innovated,  or  changed  ;  but  that  they  be  observed 
after  that  sort  as  before  they  were  accustomed,  or  else 
now  sith  prescribed  by  the  authority  of  his  Majesty, 
or  by  the  means  aforesaid,  upon  pain  that  whosoever  shall 


IN  EDWAED  VI.'S  SECOND  YEAE  181 

offend  contrary  to  this  Proclamation  shall  incur  his 
Highness's  indignation,  and  suffer  imprisonment  and 
other  grievous  punishments  at  his  Majesty's  will  and 
pleasure.1 

In  addition  to  this  the  Order  of  the  Com- 
munion, which  came  into  legal  use  at  Easter  in 
Edward's  second  year,  and  remained  in  legal 
possession  till  Pentecost  in  the  third  year,  ordered 
that  the  Sacrament  should  be  administered  mean- 
while *  without  the  varying  of  any  other  rite  or 
ceremony  in  the  Mass '  than  communion  in  both 
kinds  and  elevation  at  the  Canon.  Consequently 
Dr.  Gibson's  '  extraordinary  difference  between  the 
last  year  of  Henry  VIII.  and  the  first  and  second 
years  of  Edward  VI.'  resolves  itself  into  the  ad- 
ministration of  the  Sacrament  to  the  laity  in  both 
kinds.  And,  as  I  have  already  shown,  even  this 
was  provided  for  by  Henry  VIII.  before  his  death. 

Dr.  Gibson  also  declared  that  '  religion  as  left 
by  Henry  VIII.  included  the  whole  system  of 
Chantries.'  Even  if  it  did,  that  has  nothing  to  do 
with  the  Ornaments  Eubric,  with  which  alone  I 
had  to  deal.  But  it  did  not.  Henry  VIII.  had 
received  from  Parliament  for  the  term  of  his 
natural  life  power  to  visit  and  suppress  colleges, 
hospitals,  chantries,  free  chapels,  and  other  such 
corporations,  and  he  availed  himself  of  this  power 
to  some  extent.  The  Act  terminated  with  Henry's 
life,  and  was  renewed  in  favour  of  his  son.  So 

1  Cardwell's  Doc.  Ann.  i.  42. 


182  CHANTEIES  IN  1547-1548 

that,  in  matter  of  fact,  *  the  whole  system  of 
Chantries  '  had  been  potentially  abolished  towards 
the  end  of  Henry  VIII. 's  life,  and  power  to  con- 
tinue their  abolition  was  renewed  to  his  son. 
There  was  thus  no  difference  of  principle  in  the 
matterof  Chantries  between  the  end  of  Henry  VIII. 's 
reign  and  the  beginning  of  Edward  VI. 's.  Edward's 
policy  was  simply  a  continuation  of  Henry's. 

And  here  I  may  take  my  leave  of  Dr.  Gibson's 
1  extraordinary  difference  between  the  last  year  of 
Henry  VIII.  and  the  first  and  second  years  of 
Edward  VI.' 


CHAPTEE  XIV 


COSIN    AND   OTHER   COMMENTATORS    ON    THE 
ORNAMENTS    RUBRIC 

COSIN'S  references  to  the  Ornaments  Eubric  and 
the  Act  which  gave  it  Parliamentary  sanction  are 
somewhat  confused,  as  the  reader  will  see  by 
reading  them  in  juxtaposition  as  follows : — 


As  were  in  use,  &cl\ 
Among  other  ornaments  of 
the  Church  that  were  then 
in  use,  the  setting  of  two 
lights  upon  the  Commu- 
nion-table or  altar  was  one 
appointed  by  the  King's 
Injunctions  (set  forth  about 
that  time,  and  mentioned 
or  ratified  by  the  Act  of 
Parliament  here  named), 
whereby  all  other  wax 
lights  and  tapers,  which  in 
former  times  of  superstition 
men  were  wont  to  place 
before  their  shrines  and 
images  of  saints,  being 
taken  away  and  utterly 
abolished,  it  was  required 
that  two  lights  only  should 
be  placed  upon  the  altar  to 


Such  ornaments,  c£c.] 
Without  which  (as  common 
reason  and  experience 
teaches  us)  the  Majesty  of 
Him  that  owneth  it,  and 
the  work  of  his  service 
there,  will  prove  to  be  of  a 
very  common  and  low  es- 
teem. The  particulars  of 
those  ornaments  (both  of 
the  Church  and  of  the 
ministers  thereof)  are  re- 
ferred not  to  the  fifth  of 
Edward  VI.,  as  the  service 
itself  is  in  the  beginning  of 
that  Act,  for  in  that  fifth 
year  were  all  ornaments 
taken  away  (but  a  surplice 
only),  both  from  bishops 
and  priests  and  all  other 
ministers,  and  nothing  was 


184       COSIN  ON  THE  OENAMENTS  EUBEIC 

signify  the  joy  and  splen-  left  for  the  Church  but  a 
dour  we  receive  from  the  font,  a  table,  and  a  linen 
light  of  Christ's  Gospel.  cloth  upon  it  (at  the  time 

of  the  Communion  only), 
but  to  the  second  year  of 
that  King,  when  his  Service- 
book  and  Injunctions  were 
in  force  by  authority  of 
Parliament.  And  in  those 
books  many  other  orna- 
ments are  appointed ;  as, 
two  lights  to  be  set  upon 
the  altar  or  Communion- 
table, a  cope  or  vestment 
for  the  priest  and  for  the 
bishop,  besides  their  albs, 
surplices  and  rochets,  the 
bishop's  crosier-staff,  to  be 
holden  by  him  at  his  minis- 
tration and  ordination  ;  and 
those  ornaments  of  the 
Church  which  by  former 
laws,  not  then  abrogated, 
were  in  use  by  virtue  of  the 
Statute  25  Henry  VIII. ; 
and  for  them  the  provincial 
constitutions  are  to  be  con- 
sulted, such  as  have  not 
been  repealed,  standing  then 
in  the  second  year  of  King 
Edward  VI.,  and  being  still 
in  force  by  virtue  of  this  ru- 
bric and  Act  of  Parliament.1 

1  The  following  is  the  section  of  the  Act  25  Hen.  c.  19,  to  which 
Cosin  refers :  '  Provided  also  that  such  canons,  constitutions,  ordinances 
and  synodals  provincial  being  already  made,  which  be  not  contrariant 


COSIN  ON  THE  OENAMENTS  EUBEIC       185 

By  authority  of  Parliament.']  Which  confirmed  both 
the  first  Liturgy  and  Injunctions  of  Edward  the  Sixth. 

It  is  plain  from  the  context  that  '  by  authority 
of  Parliament }  Cosin  here  meant  the  first  Act  of 
Uniformity.  But  that  belonged  to  the  second  and 
third  years  of  Edward,  whereas  the  Injunctions 
belonged  to  the  early  part  of  his  first  year.  It  is 
true  that  the  Injunctions  had  Parliamentary 
authority,  as  I  have  already  shown,1  but  not  the 
authority  of  the  Act  of  Uniformity.  Cosin  goes  on 
to  quote  the  corresponding  clause  of  Elizabeth's 
Act  of  Uniformity ;  and  his  comment  on  the  famous 
'until  other  order,'  &c.,  is:  'which  other  order, 
so  qualified  as  is  here  appointed  to  be,  was  never 
yet  made.' 

Here  again  Cosin  claims  the  authority  of  the 
first  Act  of  Uniformity  for  Edward's  Injunctions, 
which  seems  extraordinary.  And  not  only  so,  but 
he  asserts  that  the  first  Prayer  Book  was  '  in  force  ' 
in  the  second  year  of  Edward  by  the  same  Act  of 
Uniformity ;  the  fact,  of  course,  being  that  the  first 
Prayer-Book  was  not  in  force  till  the  sixth  month 
of  Edward's  third  year,  and  was  not  even  printed 
in  the  second  year. 

nor  repugnant  to  the  laws,  statutes  and  customs  of  this  realm,  nor  to 
the  damage  or  limit  of  the  king's  prerogative  royal,  shall  now  still  be 
used  and  executed  as  they  were  afore  the  passing  of  this  Act,'  &c.  Sir 
Lewis  Dibdin,  in  his  examination  of  me,  argued  that  this  Act  gave  no 
Parliamentary  authority  to  the  laws,  constitutions,  ordinances,  and 
synodals  provincial  there  sanctioned.  I  have  elsewhere  given  reasons 
to  show  that  Sir  Lewis  is  in  error  in  this.  See  Appendix  A.  p.  287. 
1  Pp.  136-153. 


186       COSIN  ON  THE  OENAMENTS  EUBEIC 

Again : 

Among  other  ornaments  of  the  Church  also  then  in 
use,  in  the  second  year  of  Edward  VI.,  there  were  two 
lights  appointed  by  his  Injunctions  (which  the  Parliament 
had  authorised  him  to  make,  and  whereof  otherwhiles  they 
made  mention,  as  acknowledging  them  to  be  binding}, 
to  be  set  upon  the  high  altar,  as  a  significant  ceremony 
of  the  light  which  Christ's  Gospel  brought  into  the 
world ;  and  this  at  the  same  time  when  all  other  lights 
and  tapers  superstitiously  set  before  images  were  by  the 
same  Injunctions,  with  many  other  absurd  ceremonies 
and  superfluities,  taken  away.  These  lights  were  (by 
virtue  of  this  present  [Elizabethan]  rubric,  referring  to 
what  was  in  use  in  the  second  of  Edward  VI.}  afterwards 
continued  in  all  the  Queen's  chapels  during  her  whole 
reign ;  and  so  are  they  in  the  King's  and  in  many  Cathe- 
dral churches,  besides  the  chapels  of  divers  noblemen, 
bishops  and  colleges  to  this  day.  It  was  well  known  that 
the  Lord  Treasurer  Burleigh  (who  was  no  friend  to  super- 
stition or  Popery)  used  them  constantly  in  his  chapel, 
with  other  ornaments  of  fronts,  palls,  and  books,  upon  his 
altar.  The  like  did  Bishop  Andrewes,  who  was  a  man 
who  knew  well  what  he  did,  and  as  free  from  Popish 
superstition  as  any  in  the  kingdom  besides.  In  the  latter 
end  of  King  Edward's  time  they  used  them  in  Scotland 
itself,  as  appears  by  Calvin's  epistle  to  Knox  and  his 
fellow-reformers  there,  anno  1554,  Ep.  206,  when  he 
takes  exception  against  them,  for  following  the  custom  of 
England. 

To  this  head  we  refer  the  organ,  the  font,  the  altar,  the 
Communion-table,  with  the  coverings  and  ornaments  of 
them  all ;  together  with  the  paten,  chalice  and  corporas, 
which  were  all  in  use  in  the  second  year  of  Edward  VI. 
by  the  authority  of  the  Acts  of  Parliament  then  made.1 

1  Cosin's  Works,  v.  231-233,  438-441. 


COSIN  ON  THE  OBNAMENTS  EUBEIC       187 

This  passage  is  important  for  several  reasons. 
Let  the  reader  look  at  the  words  which  I  have 
marked  by  italics.  The  first  of  them  explains 
what  Cosin  meant  by  claiming  the  authority  of  the 
first  Act  of  Uniformity  for  Edward's  Injunctions. 
He  meant  the  indirect  authority  of  that  Act. 
*  Parliament l  had  authorised '  the  King  to  issue 
the  Injunctions — which  is  quite  true — and  the  Act 
of  Uniformity  '  made  mention ' 2  of  them,  thereby 
'  acknowledging  them  to  be  binding.'  He  expresses 
the  same  view  in  a  passage  already  quoted  (p.  183) 
where  he  speaks  of  '  the  King's  Injunctions  (set 
forth  about  this  time,  mentioned  or  ratified  by  the 
Act  of  Parliament  here  named),'  namely,  the  first 
Act  of  Uniformity. 

Next,  Cosin  understands  the  Ornaments  Kubric 
and  the  Ornaments  clause  of  the  Act  of  Uniformity 
of  1559  as  referring  to  the  usage  of  Edward's 
second  year.  And  he  holds  that  the  ceremonial 
sanctioned  directly  or  indirectly  by  the  Injunctions 
of  Edward  remained  in  force  down  to  his  own  time, 
as  proved  by  the  practice  of  Elizabeth,  of  Burleigh, 
of  cathedrals  and  college  chapels,  of  Bishop 

1  Namely  31  Hen.  VIII.  c.  8. 

2  It   is   true  that   2  &  8  Edward  VI.  c.   1   does  not  'mention' 
Edward's  Injunctions  by  name,  but  the   Preamble   of  the   Act  un- 
doubtedly refers  to  the  Injunctions  in   the   following  words:  'And 
albeit  the  King's  Majesty,  with  the  advice  of  his  most  entirely  beloved 
uncle,  the  Lord  Protector  and  other  of  his  Highness's  Council,  has 
heretofore  divers  times  essayed  to  stay  innovations  or  new  rites  con- 
cerning the  premises,  yet  the  same  has  not  had  such  good  success  as 
his  Highness  required  in  that  behalf.'     Cosin  seems  to  have  regarded 
this  as  a  retrospective  sanction  of  the  Injunctions. 


188  SUGGESTED  EXPLANATION  OF 

Andre wes,  and  others.  And  certainly  altar  lights 
and  other  ornaments  mentioned  by  Cosin  had  no 
authority  at  all  if  the  litera  scripta  of  the  first 
Prayer-Book  is  to  be  received  as  the  limit  of 
ceremonial  lawful  under  the  Ornaments  Eubric. 
Cosin's  argument  on  that  point  is  conclusive. 

But  what  did  Cosin  mean  by  ornaments  '  which 
were  all  in  use  in  the  second  year  of  Edward  VI. 
by  the  authority  of  the  Acts  of  Parliament  then 
made '  ?  Why  does  he  use  the  plural  ?  What 
'  Acts  of  Parliament  then  made '  does  he  mean  ? 
We  need  not  restrict  his  words  literally  to  the 
second  year.  Cosin  probably  meant  about  that  time. 
Still,  the  plural  remains  unexplained.  I  can  only 
suggest  that  Cosin,  like  the  writers  of  the  time, 
meant  Edward's  first  Act  *  sanctioning,  as  I  believe, 
the  Order  of  the  Communion  and  customary  cere- 
monial, together  with  the  first  Act  of  Uniformity. 
I  can  think  of  nothing  else  which  fits  into  his 
words.  And  in  any  case  his  argument  from 
25  Hen.  VIII.  c.  19  covers  the  Order  of  the  Com- 
munion with  Parliamentary  authority.  Cosin  else- 
where lays  down  as  follows  the  broad  principles 
enforced  by  the  Church  of  England  in  the  24th 


1  Elizabeth's  Act  of  Supremacy  revived  that  statute  ;  '  and  all  and 
every  branches,  clauses,  and  sections  therein  contained,  shall  and  may 
likewise,  from  the  last  day  of  this  session  of  Parliament,  be  revived, 
and  from  henceforth  shall  and  may  stand,  remain,  and  be  in  full  force, 
strength  and  effect,  to  all  intents,  constructions  and  purposes,  in  such 
like  manner  and  form  as  the  same  was  at  any  time  in  the  first  year  of 
the  said  late  King  Edward  VI.' 


COSIN'S  LANGUAGE  189 

Canon :  '  She  [Church  of  England]  prescribes  not 
any  ceremonies  to   other  Churches,   nor  has  she 
abrogated  any  that  were  instituted  by  Christ  or  His 
Apostles,  and  were  generally  received  by  the  whole 
Church  of  God.1 1     We  can  in  this  way  reconcile 
the  apparent   discrepancies  in   Cosin's   language, 
and  bring  them,  with  one  exception,  into  accord 
with  historical  facts.     That  one  exception  is  his 
assertion  that  Edward's  first  Act  of  Uniformity  and 
his  first  Prayer-Book  were  legislative  products  of 
his  second  regnal  year.    Cosin  plainly  asserts  that 
the  first  Prayer-Book  was  in  use  in  the  second 
year,  and  by  the  second  year  he  evidently  meant 
the  year  1549.     He  was  right  in  thinking  that  the 
Act  of  Uniformity  became  a  legal  instrument  in  that 
year ;  right  also  in  thinking  that  the  first  Prayer- 
Book  and  its  prescriptions  '  were  in  force '  in  that 
year ;  but  wrong  of  course  in  thinking  that  1549 
was  Edward's  second  year.      Cosin  was  a  great 
authority,  and  his  error  in  this  matter  has  mis- 
led a  number  of  writers  who  have  accepted  his 
dictum  without   verifying  it.     It  was  perhaps   a 
natural  mistake,  and  other  writers  of  the  seven- 
teenth century,  as  well  as  of  the  nineteenth,  have 
fallen  into  it.     It  was  my  own  belief  till  lately, 
when  circumstances  obliged  me  to  go  carefully  and 
critically  into  the  question.    Of  contemporary  and 
subsequent  writers  who  made  the  same  mistake  as 
Cosin  in  regard  to  the  second  year  of  Edward  VI. 

1  Cosin's  Works,  v.  187. 


190       TEADITIONAL  EEKOE  OF  MISTAKING 

I  need  only  quote  one,  the  Rev.  W.  Watt,  D.D., 
who  edited  in  1640  a  standard  edition  of  Matthew 
Paris  with  a  valuable  glossary.  After  describing 
the  alb  as  a  linen  vestment,  '  like  the  surplice,'  he 
says : — 

Usum  scilicet  hujus  Albae  in  Ecclesia  Anglicana,  in 
desuetudinem  potius  sponte  sua  (sed  quomodo  nescio) 
abiisse,  quam  authoritate  aliqua  sacerdotibus  nostris  aut 
vetitum  esse  aut  negatum.  Cum  enim  in  Rubrica  trium 
illarum  media,  quae  principio  Liturgias  Anglicanas  prse- 
figuntur,  statutum  reperiatur  quod  Minister  tempore 
administrationis  sacrae  coense,  et  in  omnibus  ministra- 
tionis  SU83  temporibus  aliis  talibus  in  Ecclesia  utetur 
ornamentis,  quse  authoritate  Parliamentaria  in  usu  erant, 
in  secundo  regni  anno  Regis  Edwardi  sexti :  Sane,  in 
Liturgia  ilia  Edwardi  ipsissima  (in  priore  duarum,  scilicet 
quse  sub  annum  regni  sui  secundum  Dominiq.  1549,  in 
lucem  prodiit)  in  bsec  verba  statutum  reperiatur.  In  die 
et  tempore  sacrae  celebrandae  ccenae  constitutis,  Sacerdos 
qui  sacra  tune  fungetur  ministratione,  ea  ipsa  se  induet 
veste  quae  eidemmet  ministrationi  est  assignata ;  cum 
Alba  scilicet,  et  vestimento  sive  capa  chorali.  Ministri 
etiam  coadjutores  albis  similiter  vestientur. 

Here,  then,  we  have  a  learned  divine  writing 
about  the  same  time  as  Cosin,  assuming  as  a 
matter  of  common  knowledge  that  the  first  Prayer- 
Book  was  in  public  use  in  Edward's  second  year, 
which  he  is  careful  to  add  was  Anno  Domini  1549. 
It  is  curious  how  a  mistake  of  this  sort  is  some- 
times perpetuated  from  generation  to  generation 
by  a  series  of  writers  who  copy  each  other  without 
reflection  or  examination.  A  palpable  blunder 


1549  FOE  THE  SECOND  YEAR  191 

thus  becomes  stereotyped  as  an  historical  fact, 
misleading  perchance,  as  in  the  present  case,  the 
tribunals  of  justice.  And  so  we  may  dismiss  as  of 
no  account  the  authorities,  eminent  and  obscure, 
who  have  handed  down  the  false  tradition  that  the 
rubrical  directions  of  Edward's  first  Prayer-Book 
prescribe  the  limits  of  ceremonial  sanctioned  by  the 
Ornaments  Rubric. 


CHAPTER  XV 

THE     ADVERTISEMENTS 

IT  is  hardly  credible  that  any  lawyer  who  has  a 
reputation  to  lose  will  ever  again,  after  examining 
the  facts  for  himself,  endorse  the  Purchas  and 
Ridsdale  judgments  on  the  subject  of  the  Adver- 
tisements of  1566.  The  Judicial  Committee  in  the 
Purchas  case  ruled  as  follows,  and  its  judgment 
was  confirmed  by  the  same  tribunal  in  the  Bids- 
dale  case : — 

The  vestment  or  cope,  alb  and  tunicle,  were  ordered 
by  the  first  Prayer-Book  of  Edward  VI.  They  were 
abolished  by  the  Prayer-Book  of  1552,  and  the  surplice 
was  substituted.  They  were  provisionally  restored  by 
the  statute  of  Elizabeth  and  by  her  Prayer-Book  of 
1559.  But  the  Injunctions  and  Advertisements  of 
Elizabeth  established  a  new  order  within  a  few  years 
from  the  passing  of  tbe  statute,  under  which  chasuble, 
alb,  and  tunicle  disappeared.  The  Canons  of  1603-4, 
adopting  anew  tbe  reference  to  theBubric  of  Edward  VI., 
sanctioned  in  express  terms  all  that  the  Advertisements 
had  done  in  the  matter  of  the  vestments,  and  ordered 
the  surplice  only  to  be  used  in  parish  churches.  The 
revisers  of  our  present  Prayer-Book,  under  another  form 
of  words,  repeated  the  reference  to  the  second  year  of 
Edward  VI.,  and  they  did  so  advisedly  after  attention  had 
been  called  to  the  possibility  of  a  return  to  the  vestments. 


DID  NOT  EEPEAL  OENAMENTS  BUBBIC     193 

Let  us  examine  this  extraordinary  judicial 
decision  in  the  light  of  law  and  history. 

As  to  law,  it  violates  legal  axioms  which  are  so 
well  understood  and  so  universally  received  that 
they  may  be  regarded  as  truisms.  Assuming  for 
the  moment  that  the  Advertisements  possessed 
statutory  authority,  it  by  no  means  follows  that 
they  were  intended  to  repeal,  or  did  in  fact  repeal, 
any  part  of  Elizabeth's  Act  of  Uniformity.  There 
is  not  a  sentence  or  a  single  word  in  them  which 
can  be  tortured  into  such  a  meaning.  To  repeal  a 
statute  one  of  two  things  is  absolutely  necessary  : 
a  subsequent  statute  may  repeal  it  in  express 
terms ;  or  it  may  be  so  repugnant  to  it  that  it 
repeals  it  by  implication,  since  it  is  obvious  that 
when  two  statutes  are  in  such  direct  collision  that 
both  cannot  stand  together  the  later  must  prevail, 
and  consequently  abrogates  the  former  indirectly. 
But  if  there  is  no  such  collision  there  is  no  repeal 
of  either,  and  both  remain  in  force.  These  are 
axioms  of  legal  interpretation,  as  any  lawyer  who 
knows  his  business  will  admit.  But  it  may  be 
well  to  cite  a  few  authorities  : — 

A  subsequent  statute  may  repeal  a  prior  one,  not  only 
expressly,  but  by  implication,  as  when  it  is  contrary 
thereto,  i.e.  so  clearly  repugnant  that  it  necessarily 
implies  a  negation ;  but  if  the  Acts  can  stand  together 
they  shall  have  a  concurrent  efficacy.1 

1  Wharton's  Law-Lexicon,  p.  15,  9th  edition  by  J.  M.  Lely,  Esq., 
M.A.,  Barrister-at-Law. 

O 


194  INDIRECT  REPEAL  EXPLAINED 

But  it  is  in  the  interpretation  of  general  words  and 
phrases  that  the  principle  of  strictly  adapting  the  mean- 
ing to  the  particular  subject-matter,  in  reference  to 
which  the  words  are  used,  finds  its  most  frequent  appli- 
cation. However  wide  in  the  abstract,  they  are  more  or 
less  elastic,  and  admit  of  restriction  or  expansion  to  suit 
the  subject-matter.  While  expressing  truly  enough  all 
that  the  Legislature  intended,  they  frequently  express 
more  in  their  literal  meaning  and  natural  force ;  and  it 
is  necessary  to  give  them  the  meaning  which  best  suits 
the  scope  and  object  of  the  statute  without  extending  it  to 
ground  foreign  to  the  intention.  It  is  therefore  a  canon 
of  interpretation  that  all  words,  if  they  be  general,  and 
not  express  and  precise,  are  to  be  restricted  to  the  fitness 
of  the  matter.  They  are  to  be  construed  as  particular 
if  the  intention  be  particular;  that  is,  they  must  be 
understood  as  used  in  reference  to  the  subject-matter  in 
the  mind  of  the  Legislature,  and  strictly  limited  to  it.  .  .  . 
The  law  will  not  allow  the  revocation  of  a  statute  by 
construction  when  the  words  may  have  their  proper 
operation  without  it.1 

One  more  authority  may  suffice.  Some  two 
generations  ago  the  question  of  the  validity  of 
Lay  Baptism  came  up  for  decision  before  the 
Court  of  Arches  and  the  Judicial  Committee. 
The  two  Prayer-Books  of  Edward  VI.  and  the 
Prayer-Book  of  Elizabeth  allowed  Lay  Baptism. 
In  1603-4  this  permission  was  omitted,  and  a 
rubric  was  inserted  requiring  the  officiant  to  be 
'  the  lawful  minister/  which  was  explained  at  the 
last  revision  as  the  '  minister  of  the  parish,  or,  in 

1  Maxwell  On  the  Interpretation  of  Statutes,  pp.  75,  186. 


CASE  OF  MAETIN  v.  ESCOTT  195 

his  absence,  any  other  lawful  minister  that  can  be 
procured.'  This,  prima  facie,  excludes  the  ministry 
of  a  layman.  So  thought  Mr.  Escott,  a  worthy 
parish  priest,  who  was  prosecuted  for  refusing  to 
bury  a  child  who  had  only  received  lay  baptism. 
His  defence  was  that  the  child  had  died  un- 
baptized,  having  received  baptism  from  a  layman 
only.  The  Court  of  Arches  decided  against  him 
and  suspended  him  for  three  months.  He  appealed 
to  the  Judicial  Committee,  which  confirmed  the 
sentence.  I  am  concerned  here  only  with  the  ratio 
dicendi  laid  down  by  the  Court  of  Appeal,  which 
consisted  of  Lord  Wynford,  Lord  Brougham,  Mr. 
Justice  Erskine,  and  Dr.  Lushington.  The  judg- 
ment of  the  Committee  was  written  and  delivered 
by  Lord  Brougham.  The  Court  decided  that  '  the 
Common  Law  '  of  Christendom,  recognised  by  both 
East  and  West,  sanctioned  Lay  Baptism  in  case  of 
necessity,  and  that  neither  the  Canon  of  1603-4 
nor  the  statutory  rubric  of  1661  could  abrogate 
the  Common  Law  without  saying  so  in  express 
language.  The  judgment  parenthetically  defines 
'  the  Common  Law  '  as '  not  the  law  made  by  statute 
and  rubric,  but  the  law  by  statute  and  rubric  recog- 
nised.' The  following  quotation  gives  the  ratio 
dicendi  of  the  judgment : — 

Generally  speaking,  when  anything  is  established  by 
statutory  provisions  the  enactment  of  a  new  provision 
must  clearly  indicate  an  intention  to  abrogate  the  old  ; 
else  both  will  be  understood  to  stand  together,  if  they 

o  2 


196  THE  ADVEKTISEMENTS  DID  NOT 

may.  But  more  especially  where  the  Common  Law  is  to 
be  changed,  and  most  especially  the  Common  Law  which 
a  statutory  provision  had  recognised  and  enforced,  the 
intention  of  any  new  enactment  to  abrogate  it  must  be 
plain  to  exclude  a  construction  by  which  both  may  stand 
together.  This  principle,  which  is  plainly  founded  on 
reason  and  common  sense,  has  been  largely  sanctioned 
by  authority.  [After  some  remarks  on  Coke.]  But  the 
rule  which  is  laid  down  in  2  Inst.  200  has  been  adopted 
by  all  the  authorities,  that  '  a  statute  made  in  the  affirma- 
tive, without  any  negative  expressed  or  implied,  doth  not 
take  away  the  common  law.'  .  .  .  Here  the  [new  law] 
.  .  .  must  be  taken  as  an  addition  to  and  not  a  substitu- 
tion for  the  former,  unless  the  intention  plainly  appear  to 
make  it  substitutionary  and  not  cumulative.  The  proof 
is  on  those  who  would  make  it  substitutionary  and  not 
cumulative.  .  .  . 

It  follows  inevitably  from  this  rule  of  law  that 
even  if  the  Advertisements  had  full  statutory  force 
they  would  not  abrogate  any  part  of  the  provision 
of  the  Act  of  1559,  which  legalised  the  ornaments 
of  Edward's  second  year.  For  there  is  nothing  in 
the  Advertisements  which  '  plainly  appear  to  make ' 
them  '  substitutionary  and  not  cumulative.'  The 
words  of  the  Advertisements  are  as  follows  : — 

In  ministration  of  the  Holy  Communion  in  the 
cathedral  and  collegiate  churches  the  principal  minister 
shall  use  a  cope,  with  Gospeler  and  Epistoler  agree- 
ably ;  and  at  all  other  prayers  to  be  said  at  the  Com- 
munion table  to  use  no  copes  but  surplices. 

That  every  minister  saying  any  public  prayers,  or 
ministering  of  the  Sacraments  or  other  rites  of  the 


REPEAL  ORNAMENTS  RUBRIC  197 

Church,  shall  wear  a  comely  surplice  with  sleeves,  to  be 
provided  at  the  charges  of  the  parish. 

Not  a  word  here  to  imply  any  abrogation  of  the 
Common  Law,  namely  the  ornaments  clause  of  the 
statute  of  1559.  The  Judicial  Committee  in  the 
Purchas  and  Ridsdale  cases  arrived  at  the  con- 
trary conclusion  through  ignorance  of  the  subject. 
They  said : — 

If  the  minister  is  ordered  to  wear  a  surplice  at  all 
times  of  his  ministration,  he  cannot  wear  an  alb  and 
tunicle  when  assisting  at  the  Holy  Communion ;  if  he  is 
to  celebrate  the  Holy  Communion  in  a  chasuble,  he  can- 
not celebrate  in  a  surplice. 

But,  in  the  first  place,  the  minister  is  not 
'ordered  to  wear  a  surplice  at  all  times  of  his 
ministration';  he  is  to  wear  a  surplice  at  such 
times  as  the  use  of  the  cope  is  not  enjoined.  In 
the  next  place,  it  is  not  true  that  'if  he  is  to  cele- 
brate the  Holy  Communion  in  a  chasuble  he  cannot 
celebrate  in  a  surplice ' ;  nor  is  there  any  liturgical 
or  other  reason  why  the  minister  should  not  wear 
an  alb  and  tunicle  together  with  a  surplice.  Let 
me  give  a  few  examples. 

The  following  rubric  is  from  the  York  Missal : 
'  Haec  lectio  sequens  in  medio  chori  ab  aliquo 
Vicario  seniori  in  superpellicio  et  capa  rubra 
serica.' 1  If  the  surplice  could  be  worn  under  a 
cope,  so  of  course  could  it  be  under  a  chasuble; 

1  Surtees  Society's  edition,  i.  10. 


198  LITUEGICAL  IGNOEANCE  OF 

and,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  so  it  was.  The  old 
statutes  of  St.  Paul's  ordered  the  canons  to  wear 
( colobium  aut  superpellicium  album  '  under  the 
Mass  vestment.1 

In  the  Boman  Missal  the  secular  priest  is 
enjoined,  if  it  can  be  conveniently  managed,  to 
put  on  a  surplice  first,  and  over  that  the  amice, 
alb,  &c. 

The  canons  of  Eouen  always  wore  chasubles  over 
their  surplices  at  Tierce  on  the  Feast  of  Pentecost.2 

Durandus  commends  the  practice  of  some  in  wearing 
a  surplice  over  their  own  clothes  under  the  amice  ;  next 
was  the  alb  embroidered,  made  of  fine  linen,  or  byssus ; 
it  was  straight,  without  any  surples,  and  had  straight 
sleeves  ;  it  had  a  headstall,  and  covered  the  whole  body. 
Then  the  girdle ;  next  was  the  stole  or  scarf ;  .  .  .  over 
this  was  the  chesible  or  planet,  which  was  a  surpled 
garment.3 

A  rubric  of  Edward  VI. 's  first  Prayer-Book 
ordered  the  celebrant  to  wear  (a  white  albe  plain, 
with  a  vestment  or  cope.'  A  rubric  at  the  end  of 
the  Communion  Office  says  :  '  The  Priest  shall  put 
upon  him  a  plain  albe  or  surplice,  with  a  cope.' 
Another  rubric  says  :  '  And  whensoever  the  Bishop 
shall  celebrate  the  Holy  Communion  in  the  church, 
or  execute  any  other  public  ministration,  he  shall 

1  Dr.  Bock's  Church  of  our  Fathers,  ii.  16. 

2  '  Le  jour   de   la    Pentecote  a   Tierces   sept   Chanoines  Pretres 
revetus  de  chasubles  pardessus  leurs  surpUs,  accompagnez  du  Diacre, 
du  Soudiacre,  pareillement  Chanoines,  revetus  de  dalmatique  et  de 
tunique.'     Voyages  Liturgiques  de  France,  p.  327,  Paris,  1718. 

3  Johnson's  Canons,  A.D.  1460,  note  E. 


THE  JUDICIAL  COMMITTEE  199 

have  upon  him,  besides  his  rochette,  a  surplice  or 
albe,  and  a  cope  or  vestment.' 

So  much  as  to  the  confident  dictum  of  the 
Judicial  Committee  that  an  order  to  wear  a  surplice 
is  equivalent  to  an  order  not  to  wear  a  cope,  alb, 
or  chasuble.  The  facts  are  precisely  the  reverse. 
Numbers  of  pre-Eeformation  canons  order  the 
surplice  without  mentioning  any  other  vestment. 
One  of  the  canons,  for  instance,  in  Archbishop 
Eeynolds's  Constitutions  (A.D.  1322)  says :  '  Let 
no  clerk  be  permitted  to  minister  in  the  office  of 
the  altar  without  a  surplice.'  Yet  all  the  other 
vestments  were  also  worn. 

Thus  we  see  that  not  only  may  the  Advertise- 
ments and  the  statutory  Ornaments  Eubric  stand 
together,  but  that  their  respective  injunctions  did, 
in  matter  of  fact,  stand  together  both  before  and 
after  the  Eeformation. 

The  ruling  of  the  Judicial  Committee  in  the 
Purchas  and  Eidsdale  cases  is  therefore  plainly 
contrary  to  one  of  the  received  principles  of  law — 
namely,  that  when  two  legal  injunctions  are  not 
mutually  contradictory  they  may  stand  together ; 
it  is  also  contradicted  by  a  long  series  of  facts, 
without  a  single  fact  to  support  it. 

But  the  ignorance  of  the  Court,  begotten  of 
inveterate  and  invincible  prejudice,  sank  to  a 
still  lower  deep.  There  was  a  colourable,  though 
flimsy,  excuse  for  inferring,  from  the  '  until  further 
order  '  of  Elizabeth's  Act  of  Uniformity,  that  the 


200         COUETS  SHOULD  NOT  CONSTEUE 

Eucharistic  vestments  were  '  provisionally  restored 
by  the  Statute  of  Elizabeth  and  by  the  Prayer-Book 
of  1559.'  But  the  Court  had  to  do  with  the  statute 
of  1662,  not  with  the  statute  of  1559 ;  and  the 
statute  of  1662  says  nothing  about  '  further  order.' 
It  restores  all  the  ornaments  of  Edward  VI. 's 
second  regnal  year  absolutely.  And  therefore  what 
the  Court  in  the  Purchas  case  decided  was  that  the 
Advertisements  of  1564-6  repealed  a  statute  enacted 
nearly  a  century  afterwards.  The  special  pleading 
by  means  of  which  the  Court  conscientiously  arrived 
at  that  paradoxical  conclusion  is  one  of  the  most 
marvellous  exhibitions  of  judicial  legerdemain  in 
the  annals  of  jurisprudence.  And  the  paradox  was 
reaffirmed  by  the  same  tribunal  in  the  Eidsdale 
case  through  the  frankly-avowed  process  of  ( read- 
ing into '  the  statute  of  1662  an  interpretation 
which  literally  reversed  its  plain  language.1  A 
minority  of  the  Court,  as  we  afterwards  learnt, 
disagreed  with  the  majority,  although  their  dissent 
was  suppressed  at  the  time,  and  the  judgment  was 
given  as  the  unanimous  decision  of  the  whole 
body. 

It  needs  no  argument  to  show  that  the  Purchas 
and  Eidsdale  Judgments  are  in  this  respect  a  com- 
plete inversion  of  one  of  the  fundamental  principles 
of  British  law  as  laid  down  by  our  courts  and 
jurists,  as,  for  instance,  in  Edrick's  case,  where  the 
judges  said : — 

1  Folkestone  Ritual  Case,  p.  719. 


AGAINST  THE  STATUTE  201 

They  ought  not  to  make  any  construction  against 
the  statute ;  for  nothing  can  so  express  the  meaning  of 
the  makers  of  the  Act  as  their  own  direct  words,  for 
index  animi  sermo.  And  it  would  be  dangerous  to  give 
scope  to  make  a  construction  in  any  case  against  the 
express  words  when  the  meaning  of  the  makers  doth  not 
appear  to  the  contrary,  and  when  no  inconvenience  will 
therefore  follow  ;  and  therefore  a  verbis  legis  non  est 
recedendum.  '  In  fact,'  says  Stephens,  in  commenting  on 
this  case,  '  when  the  Legislature  has  used  words  of  a 
plain  and  definite  import  it  would  be  very  dangerous  to  put 
upon  them  a  construction  which  would  amount  to  holding 
that  the  Legislature  did  not  mean  what  it  expressed. 
The  fittest  in  all  cases  where  the  intention  of  the  Legis- 
lature is  brought  into  question  is  to'  adhere  to  the  words 
of  the  statute,  construing  them  according  to  their 
nature  and  import,  in  the  order  in  which  they  stand  in 
the  Act  of  Parliament.' 

And  Stephens  quotes  as  follows  from  Lord 
Coke :- 

The  good  expositor  makes  every  sentence  have  its 
operation  to  suppress  all  the  mischiefs  ;  he  gives  effect  to 
every  word  in  the  statute.  He  does  not  construe  it  so 
that  anything  should  be  vain  and  superfluous,  nor  yet 
makes  exposition  against  express  words ;  for  viperina  est 
expositio  qua  corrodit  viscera  textus  (Poulton's  case,  34), 
but  so  expounds  it  that  one  part  of  the  Act  may  agree 
with  the  other,  and  all  may  stand  together.1 

It  is  not  necessary  to  waste  more  time  and  space 
in  showing  how  untenable  in  law  is  the  doctrine 
that  the  Advertisements,  even  supposing  for  argu- 
ment's sake  that  they  had  statutory  force,  could 

1  Bonham's  case,  8  Co.  117. 


202  THE  ADVEETISEMENTS  HAD 

repeal  proleptically  an  Act  of  Parliament  passed  a 
hundred  years  afterwards.  But  the  history  of  the 
Purchas  and  Eidsdale  Judgments  is  more  shaky 
even  than  its  law.  It  actually  bristles  with  his- 
torical blunders.  I  have  already  exposed  some  of 
these  in  the  region  of  liturgiology :  not  in  any  of 
the  recondite  bypaths  of  that  region,  but  in  the 
king's  highway,  namely,  in  the  first  Prayer-Book, 
which  the  Court  was  bound,  and  indeed  professed, 
to  have  mastered.  To  assert,  as  the  Court  as- 
serted, that  the  surplice  could  not  have  been  worn 
together  with  either  cope  or  chasuble  is  to  betray 
ignorance  of  the  elementary  facts  of  the  case. 
Occasionally,  indeed,  the  ignorance  proves  careless- 
ness of  so  gross  a  kind  that  we  may  venture  to 
call  it  discreditable.  '  The  Injunctions  and  Ad- 
vertisements of  Elizabeth,'  say  their  Lordships, 
'  established  a  new  order  within  a  few  years  from 
the  passing  of  the  statute,  under  which  chasuble, 
alb,  and  tunicle  disappeared.'  The  statute  in 
question  was  enacted  in  the  year  1559,  and  in 
the  same  year  the  Injunctions  were  published. 
This  is  what  the  Court  calls  l  a  few  years  from  the 
passing  of  the  statute.'  So  that,  according  to  their 
Lordships,  a  statute  was  enacted  in  1559  ordering 
the  Eucharistic  vestments,  and  Injunctions  were 
issued  in  the  same  year  by  the  Sovereign  forbidding 
them  !  Must  we  really  accept  history  of  this  sort 
from  the  Judicial  Committee  because  the  judges 
happen  to  be  distinguished  lawyers  ?  A  distin- 


NO  STATUTOBY  FOECE  203 

guished  Sovereign,  whose  grammar  proved  to  be 
faulty,  claimed  to  be  *  above  grammar.'  His  bad 
grammar,  however,  only  affected  himself.  But  the 
bad  history  of  the  Judicial  Committee  of  the  Privy 
Council  poisons  the  springs  of  justice  and  touches 
the  liberty  of  the  subject.  Men  have  been  subjected 
to  fine  and  imprisonment  for  disregarding  it. 

But  let  us  come  to  closer  quarters  with  these 
extraordinary  judgments.  I  have  assumed,  for  the 
sake  of  argument,  that  the  Advertisements  had 
statutory  force,  and  have  shown  that,  even  so,  they 
contain  nothing  which  conflicts  with,  and  therefore 
nothing  which  repeals,  any  part  of  the  Uniformity 
Act  of  1559,  still  less  any  part  of  the  Act  of  Uni- 
formity which  sanctions  our  present  Prayer-Book, 
and  which  was  enacted  a  century  after  the  date  of 
the  Advertisements.  I  will  now  proceed  to  show 
that  the  Advertisements  never  had  any  statutory 
force  whatever,  although  this  is  in  reality  a  perfectly 
superfluous  argument  on  my  part.  For  the  Adver- 
tisements were  not  intended  to  supersede  the  Orna- 
ments Eubric  of  1559  further  than  by  relaxing  the 
stringency  of  its  obligation  on  those  who  objected 
to  its  requirements.  The  Advertisements  were 
aimed  exclusively  at  the  recalcitrant  Puritans,  and 
let  them  off  with  a  minimum  standard  of  ceremonial 
while  leaving  the  statutory  maximum  for  those  who 
were  willing  to  observe  it.  This  is  capable  of  histo- 
rical demonstration,  as  I  shall  now  proceed  to  show. 

Who  complained  of  the  Advertisements  at  the 


204  THE  ADVERTISEMENTS  WERE 

time  and  resisted  them  to  the  best  of  their  ability  ? 
The  Puritans  exclusively.     There  were  nine  thou- 
sand parish   priests   in  England  when  Elizabeth 
ascended  the  throne,  besides   a  large  number  of 
other  clergy.     These  had  always  been  accustomed 
to  the  ancient  ritual  without  a  break  ;  for  the  short 
interval  between  the   legalisation   of  the  second 
Prayer-Book  and  the  death  of  Edward,  with  the 
cloud  of  anxiety  hanging  over  the  nation  respect- 
ing the  succession  to  the  throne,  left  no  room  for 
change  except  in  a  few  churches  in  and  around 
the  metropolis.     When   Elizabeth   succeeded  her 
sister  the  old  ceremonial  was  everywhere  in  posses- 
sion, and  her  own  private  inclination  and  political 
exigencies  prompted  her,  as  she  told  the  Spanish 
ambassador,   to   restore   the   religious    settlement 
which  her  brother  inherited  from  her  father,  and 
maintained,   on  the   whole,   during  his   first  and 
second  years.     The  multitude  are  more  influenced 
by  what   appeals  to   the   eye   and  ear    than    by 
questions  of  doctrine  which  are  addressed  to  the 
understanding ;  and  no  one  was  more  sensible  of 
this  than  Elizabeth.     She  determined,   therefore, 
to  interfere  as  little  as  possible  with  the  externals 
of  public   worship — the   formal  drapery  in  which 
the  mysteries  of  religion  are  shrouded.     By  this 
policy  she  hoped  to  conciliate  the  great  mass  of 
the    clergy,  together  with  the  laity  who  were  in 
sympathy  with  them,  and  who  consisted   of  the 
vast   majority   of  the   nation.      That    her   policy 


AIMED  AT  THE  PUEITANS  ALONE         205 

succeeded  is  proved  by  the  silent  acquiescence  of 
the  clergy  in  general,1  apart  from  the  Bishops,  who 
were  frightened  into  opposition  by  the  lawless 
excesses  of  the  Puritans  and  the  encouragement 
given  to  them  by  persons  of  commanding  influence 
at  Court.  The  complaints  and  opposition  came 
entirely  from  the  *  tiny  flock '  of  Puritans,  as  some 
of  their  own  leaders  described  them.  Let  me  give 
a  few  examples. 

One  of  the  most  influential  of  the  Puritan 
leaders  was  George  Withers,  and  the  following 
passage  from  a  letter  of  his  shows  the  view  which 
the  Puritans  at  that  time  took  of  the  '  other  order  ' 
in  Elizabeth's  Act  of  Uniformity  : — 

The  second  form  of  prayers,  which  Edward  left  behind 
him  at  his  death,  was  restored  to  the  Church.  But  the 
ceremonies  which,  as  was  above  stated,  were  retained  in 
the  Church  at  the  first  Keformation  of  Edward,  are 
restored  under  the  same  name.  Power,  moreover,  was 
given  to  the  Queen  and  the  Archbishop  to  introduce 
whatever  additional  ceremonies  they  might  think  proper ; 
and  they  immediately  afterwards  both  discontinued  the 
ordinary  bread  heretofore  used  in  the  administration  of 
the  Lord's  Supper,  and  for  the  sake  of  a  newer  reforma- 
tion adopted  the  round  wafer,  after  the  manner  of  that 
used  by  the  Papists.2 

Further  on,  Withers  gives  vent  to  his  dis- 
appointment as  follows : — 

1  It  is  on  record  that  the  number  of  clergy  who  refused  to  conform 
to  the  order  of  religion  established  by  Elizabeth  was  about  one 
hundred  and  eighty. 

2  2urich  Letters,  Second  Series,  p.  161. 


206         EVIDENCE  OF  PUEITAN  LEADEES 

Then  on  the  expulsion  of  the  Popish  bishops  new 
ones  had  to  be  appointed  in  their  room  ;  and  most  of  these 
were  of  the  number  of  returned  exiles.  These  at  first 
began  to  oppose  the  ceremonies ;  but  afterwards,  when 
there  was  no  hope  otherwise  of  obtaining  a  bishopric,  they 
yielded,  and,  as  one  of  them  openly  acknowledged,  under- 
took the  office  against  their  conscience.  In  the  mean- 
while they  comforted  their  brethren,  whom  they  perceived 
to  be  still  struggling  against  these  things,  by  promising 
them  free  liberty  in  the  government  of  their  churches ; 
and  for  some  years  they  kept  this  promise.  On  the  obtain- 
ing of  which  liberty  they  diligently  purified  their  churches 
from  all  the  blemishes  and  defilements  of  popery.  Others, 
who  had  at  first  yielded,  incited  by  their  example,  began 
to  reform  their  churches  in  the  like  manner.  But  when 
the  bishops  saw  the  number  and  influence  of  these  parties 
increasing  among  the  people,  they  thought  their  dignity 
was  at  stake,  unless  they  compelled  the  inferior  clergy 
to  adopt  the  same  usages  as  they  did  themselves.  They 
took  up  the  matter  therefore  at  the  Queen's  command.1 

He  then  goes  on  to  refer  to  the  deprivation 
of  Sampson;  the  summary  proceedings  against 
the  other  recusant  clergy  of  London  ;  ( the  Koyal 
Injunctions  and  the  Admonitions,  or  (as  they  call 
them)  the  Advertisements  of  the  bishops  ' ;  he 
bewails  'the  wretched  aspect  of  the  Church  of 
England.'  '  What  must  we  think,'  he  exclaims, 
*  when  most  of  the  clergy  are  Popish  priestlings 
consecrated  to  perform  mass '  (*  plerique  sunt 
papistarum  sacrificuli  missse  consecrati ')  ? 

These  extracts  from  Withers  prove  two  things 

1  Namely,  by  the  Advertisements. 


AND  IMPARTIAL  HISTORIANS  207 

indisputably :  first,  that  the  Advertisements  were 
aimed  at  the  Puritans,  and  in  no  sense  at  the  mass 
of  the  clergy  all  over  England,  who  obeyed  the 
Ornaments  Kubric  in  its  integrity  ;  secondly,  that 
the  Advertisements  had  nothing  but  episcopal 
authority. 

Bullinger,  another  influential  leader  of  the  Puri- 
tans, denounced  the  Advertisements  as  directed 
against  the  Puritans,  and  all  our  historians  take 
the  same  line.  Oldmixon  says  l  :— 

The  Archbishop  of  Canterbury,  the  Bishops  of  London, 
Ely,  Winchester,  and  Lincoln,  framed  several  articles  to 
enforce  the  habits,  which  were  styled  Advertisements. 
The  Archbishop  carried  them  to  the  Court ;  but  the  Queen 
as  yet  refused  to  give  them  her  sanction.  The  Arch- 
bishop chafed  at  the  disappointment,  said  the  Court  had 
put  them  upon  framing  them,  and  if  they  would  not  go 
on  and  give  them  the  royal  sanction  they  had  better  never 
have  done  anything  ;  nay,  if  the  Council  would  not  lend 
them  a  helping  hand  against  Nonconformists,  as  they  had 
done  heretofore  in  Hooper's  days,  they  should  be  but 
laughed  at  for  what  they  had  done.  But  still  the  Queen 
was  so  cold  that  when  the  Bishop  of  London  came  to 
Court  she  spoke  not  a  word  to  him  about  the  redressing 
the  neglect  of  Nonconformity  in  the  City  of  London, 
where  it  was  most  disregarded ;  upon  which  the  Arch- 
bishop went  to  the  Secretary  desiring  another  Letter  from 
the  Queen  to  back  up  their  endeavours  for  conformity ; 
adding,  in  some  heat,  '  If  you  remedy  it  not  by  Letter,  I 
will  no  more  strive  against  the  stream,  fume  or  chide  who 

1  History  of  England,  p.  340.  Cf.  451,  where  Oldmixon  reports 
Lord  Treasurer  Burleigh  as  saying  :  '  The  Queen  could  not  satisfy  her 
conscience  without  crushing  the  Puritans.' 


208  EVIDENCE   CONTINUED 

will ' ;  which  shows  us  that  the  Bishops  incited  the  same 
measures  against  the  Puritans,  and  that  the  statesmen 
did  not  care  to  meddle  in  the  matter,  since  it  must  be 
their  backwardness  which  made  the  Queen  cool  in  an 
affair  she  had  put  the  Bishops  upon. 

Carte  says x : — 

The  exiles,  returned  from  Geneva,  had  already  begun 
disputes  about  the  cap,  surplice,  and  other  ecclesiastical 
habits,  not  daring  as  yet  to  attack  either  the  liturgy  or 
the  bishops.  Their  aversion  to  the  habits  of  the  Clergy 
was  founded  on  their  having  been  worn  by  the  Papists  ; 
though  they  had  most  of  them  been  in  use  before  any  of 
the  corruptions  of  Popery  were  known  in  the  world,  and 
had  not  been  derived  from  any  pope,  but  indulged  to  the 
bishops  and  clergy  by  the  Emperor  Constantine  the 
Great,  being  really  parts  of  the  imperial  ornaments,  and 
as  such  worn  by  emperors  and  kings,  particularly  by 
those  of  England,  at  their  coronations  to  this  day,  from 
the  time  that  those  ceremonials  were  instituted. 

The  historian  goes  on  to  the  Queen's  letter  to 
the  Primate,  *  expressly  requiring  him '  and  the 
Archbishop  of  York  to  restrain  the  lawlessness  of 
the  Puritan  clergy.  He  says  : — 

But  the  business  went  on  heavily,  especially  in 
London,  where  the  greatest  number  of  the  irregular 
men  were ;  well  knowing  that,  as  they  had  hitherto 
been  connived  at  by  their  bishop,  Grindal,  they  should 
on  this  occasion  be  supported  by  Sir  Francis  Knolles 
(who  had  been  one  of  their  congregation  in  London, 
and  was  now  vice-chamberlain,  allied  to  the  Queen  by 
his  marriage  with  Gary,  and  much  in  her  favour),  by 

1  History  of  England,  iii.  420-1. 


THE  QUEEN'S  OWN  TESTIMONY  209 

Dudley  Earl  of  Leicester,  who  had  lately  put  himself  at 
the  head  of  the  party,  and  by  others1  of  their  friends 
in  Court  and  Council.  These  courtiers  had  influence 
enough  to  prevent  the  Queen  authorising  some  orders 
[i.e.  the  Advertisements]  drawn  up  by  the  bishops  for  all 
ministers  to  subscribe.2 

It  is  needless  to  multiply  authorities,  for 
Elizabeth  has  herself  placed  on  record  what  she 
intended  by  'other  order'  in  her  Act  of  Uni- 
formity. She  explained  her  meaning  indirectly  in 
her  letter,  '  given  under  our  signet  at  our  Palace 
of  Westminster,  the  22d  of  January,  the  third  year 
of  our  reign.'  It  was  addressed  to  four  of  her 
Commissioners,  '  so  authorised  by  our  Great  Seal,' 
namely,  the  Archbishop  of  Canterbury,  Bishop  of 
London,  '  William  Bil,  our  Almoner,  and  Walter 
Haddon,  one  of  the  Masters  of  our  Bequests.' 
She  begins  by  giving  them  to  understand  'that 
where  it  is  provided  by  Act  of  Parliament,  holden 
in  the  first  year  of  our  reign,  that  whensoever  we 
shall  see  cause  to  take  further  order  in  any  rite 
or  ceremony  appointed  in  the  Book  of  Common 
Prayer,'  &c.  She  reminds  them  that  she  has 
already  availed  herself  of  this  statutory  power  ; 
and  goes  on  to  enjoin  them  to  see  to  '  the  comely 
keeping  and  order  of  the  said  churches,  and 

1  Among  those  other  friends  of  the  Puritans  '  in  the  Court  and 
Council '  were  Sii  Francis  Walsingham,  the  Earl  of  Bedford,  and  the 
Earl  of  Warwick.     See  Oldmixon,  p.  340. 

2  Cf.  Collier,  Hist.  vi.  419 ;   Soames's  Elizabethan  Beli.  Hist. 
p.  43. 

P 


210       THE  QUEEN  EXPLAINS  THE  OBJECT 

especially  the  upper  part  called  the  chancel,' 
seeing  that  there  were  'great  disorders,  and  the 
decays  of  churches,  and  in  the  unseemly  keeping 
and  order  of  the  chancels  and  such  like.'  Those 
disorders  the  Commissioners  are  to  correct,  espe- 
cially *  that  in  all  collegiate 1  and  cathedral 
churches,  whose  cost  may  be  more  probably 
allowed,  one  manner  to  be  used ;  and  in  all  parish 
churches  also  either  the  same  or  at  the  least  the 
like,  and  one  manner  throughout  our  realm.' 2 

Let  me  call  attention  in  passing  to  the  proof 
afforded  here  incidentally  of  one  of  the  many 
blunders  of  the  Purchas  Judgment,  namely,  that 
the  Advertisements  established  a  different  cere- 
monial in  Cathedrals  and  Collegiate  Churches  from 
that  of  parish  churches.  Here  the  Queen  says 
distinctly  that  Cathedrals  are  the  models  at  which 
parish  churches  are  to  aim  when  they  can  afford 
the  cost.  Parish  churches  are  to  have  '  the  same 
or  at  the  least  the  like  '  order  of  service.  But  to 
pass  on. 

The  lawlessness  of  the  Puritans  went  on  in- 
creasing to  such  a  degree  that  the  Queen  was  at 
last  constrained  to  write  a  letter  to  Archbishop 
Parker,  '  requiring  him  to  confer  with  the  bishops 
of  his  Province,  and  others  having  ecclesiastical 
jurisdiction,  for  the  redressing  disorders  in  the 
Church,  occasioned  by  different  doctrines  and 

1  Which  in  the  phraseology  of  the  time  included  College  Chapels. 

2  Strype's  Life  of  Parker,  iii.  46. 


OP  THE  ADVEETISEMENTS  211 

rites,  and  for  the  taking  order  to  admit  none  into 
preferment  but  those  that  are  conformable.'  In 
this  letter  she  rebukes  '  the  Primate  and  other  the 
bishops  of  your  province  with  suffrance  of  sundry 
varieties  and  novelties,  not  only  in  opinions,  but 
because  in  external  ceremonies  and  rites  there  is 
crept  in  and  brought  into  the  Church  by  some  few 
persons,  abounding  more  in  their  own  senses  than 
wisdom  would,  and  delighting  in  singularities  and 
changes,  an  open  and  manifest  disorder,  and  offence 
to  the  godly,  wise,  and  obedient  persons,  by 
diversities  of  opinions  and  changes,  and  specially 
in  the  external,  decent,  and  lawful  rites  and  cere- 
monies to  be  used  in  churches.' 

The  meaning  of  this  is  perfectly  plain.  The 
disorders  were  all  caused  l  by  some  few  persons, 
abounding  more  in  their  own  senses  than  wisdom 
would,'  and  setting  themselves  against  the  'external, 
decent,  and  lawful  rites  and  ceremonies  to  be  used 
in  churches.'  There  is  no  manner  of  doubt  what 
those  were.  They  were  the  full  ritual  of  2  Edward 
VI. :  Eucharistic  vestments,  lights  at  celebration 
of  the  Holy  Communion,  ceremonial  use  of  incense, 
&c.  And  the  lawlessness  of  this  noisy  faction  is 
contrasted  unfavourably  with  *  the  godly,  wise,  and 
obedient  persons  ' — that  is  the  nine  thousand  parish 
priests  who  practised  the  mode  of  worship  enjoined 
by  the  Act  of  Uniformity  and  Ornaments  Eubric, 
which  is  admitted  even  by  the  Purchas  and  Bids- 
dale  judgments  to  have  been  lawful  at  the  date  of 

p  2 


212      THE  QUEEN  EXPLAINS  THE  OBJECT 

this  letter  of  Elizabeth,  and  for  some  years  after- 
wards. 

The  Queen  accordingly  '  requires,  enjoins,  and 
straitly  charges  you,  being  the  Metropolitan,  accord- 
ing to  the  power  and  authority  which  you  have 
under  us  over  the  province  of  Canterbury  (as  the 
like  we  will  order  for  the  province  of  York),  to 
confer  with  the  Bishops  your  brethren,  such  as  be 
in  commission  for  clauses  ecclesiastical,'  and  '  so 
to  proceed  by  order,  injunction,  or  censure,  accord- 
ing to  the  order  and  appointment  of  such  laws  and 
ordinances  as  are  provided  by  Act  of  Parliament, 
and  the  true  meaning  thereof ' ;  and  also  '  to 
observe,  keep,  and  maintain  such  order  and  uni- 
formity in  all  the  external  rites  and  ceremonies, 
both  for  the  Church  and  for  their  own  persons,  as 
by  laws,  good  usages,  and  orders,  are  already 
allowed,  well  provided,  and  established.' 

Surely  it  needs  a  triple  panoply  of  prejudice  to 
see  in  these  instructions  any  hint,  still  less  any 
order,  to  alter  the  law  and  upset  the  order  of  worship 
prescribed  by  Statute  and  Eubric.  On  the  contrary, 
the  Primate  and  his  suffragans  are  to  devise  means 
whereby  the  lawless  clergy  may  be  made  to  con- 
form to  the  existing  law.  The  Ornaments  Kubric, 
instead  of  being  condemned  as  c  provisional,'  is 
upheld  as  *  established.' 

The  Queen  concludes  : — 

And  in  the  execution  hereof  we  require  you  to  use 
all  expedition  that  to  such  a  course  as  this  is  shall  seem 


OP  THE  ADVEETISEMENTS  213 

necessary :  that  hereafter  we  be  not  occasioned,  for  lack 
of  your  diligence,  to  provide  such  further  remedy,  by 
some  other  sharp  proceedings,  as  shall  percase  not  be  easy 
to  be  borne  by  such  as  shall  be  disordered :  and  there- 
with also  we  shall  impute  to  you  the  cause  thereof. 

Strype  has  the  following  note  here  : — 

This  last  paragraph  was  substituted  in  the  room  of 
some  other  words,  which  I  find  written  by  Cecil's  own 
hand  in  a  former  rough  draught,  which  (carrying  some- 
thing in  them  that  might  be  made  use  of  in  favour  of 
those  Dissenters)  the  Queen,  I  suppose,  commanded  to 
be  struck  out,  and  the  words  above  inserted  in  the  place 
thereof.  The  words  of  the  rough  draught  were  as 
follows :  '  And  yet  in  the  execution  hereof  we  require 
you  to  use  all  good  discretion,  that  hereof  no  trouble 
grow  in  the  Church ;  neither  that  such  as  of  frowardness 
and  obstinacy  forbear  to  acknowledge  our  supreme 
authority  over  all  sorts  of  our  subjects  be  hereby 
encouraged  anywise  to  think  that  we  mean  to  have  any 
change  of  policy,  or  of  the  laws  already  made  and 
established,  but  that  the  same  shall  remain  in  their  due 
force  and  strength.' 

Surely  this  is  decisive  of  the  intention  with 
which  the  Advertisements  were  framed.  The 
Queen's  minister  tones  down  a  little  the  stringent 
and  menacing  language  of  the  Queen,  yet  enjoins 
that  her  Majesty's  intentions  shall  be  carried  out 
with  such  discretion  that  the  lawless  clergy  shall 
not  be  '  encouraged  anywise  to  think  '  that  there  is 
going  to  be  any  change  of  policy  '  or  of  the  laws 
already  made,  but  that  the  same  shall  remain  in 
their  due  force  and  strength.'  But  even  this  is  too 


214         THE  ADVEETISEMENTS  HAD  ONLY 

mild  for  the  Queen.  She  strikes  it  out,  and  inserts 
in  its  place  a  threat  of  '  other  sharp  proceedings  ' 
against  the  recalcitrants. 

In  obedience  to  the  Queen's  commands,  says 
Strype  :— 

The  Archbishop  and  some  of  the  other  Bishops  of 
the  Ecclesiastical  Commission  proceeded  to  compile 
certain  Articles,  to  be  observed  partly  for  due  order  in 
the  public  administration  of  the  holy  Sacraments,  and 
partly  for  the  apparel  of  persons  ecclesiastical.  These 
Articles  were  printed  with  a  Preface  this  year  1564,  by 
Eeginald  Wolf,  according  to  Bishop  Sparrow's  Collec- 
tions, and  entitled  Advertisements.  Though  by  a 
writing  on  the  backside  of  the  fair  copy  that  was  sent  to 
the  Secretary,  when  they  were  first  framed,  it  seems 
they  were  not  presently  published  nor  authorised.  For 
these  are  the  words  written  upon  them  by  the  Secretary's 
own  hand,  March  1564,  Ordinances  accorded  by  the  Arch- 
bishop of  Canterbury,  dc.  in  his  province.  These  were 
not  authorised  nor  published.1 

Strype  proceeds : — 

The  matter,  I  suppose,  was  this :  When  these  Articles 
(by  Leicester's  means  no  question)  were  refused  to  be 
confirmed  by  the  Queen's  Council,  the  Archbishop,  how- 
ever, thought  it  advisable  to  print  them  under  his  and 
the  rest  of  the  Commissioners'  hands,  to  signify  at  least 
what  their  judgment  and  will  was ;  and  so  let  their 
authority  go  as  far  as  it  would.  Which  was  probable  to 
take  effect  with  the  greater  part  of  the  clergy  ;  especially 
considering  their  canonical  obedience  they  had  sworn 
to  their  Diocesans.  But  because  the  book  wanted  the 
Queen's  authority  they  thought  fit  not  to  term  the 

1  Strype's  Life  of  Parker,  i.  313. 


EPISCOPAL  AUTHOBITY  215 

contents  thereof  Articles  or  Ordinances,  by  which  name 
they  went  at  first,  but  by  a  modester  denomination,  viz. 
Advertisements. 

This  was  the  reason  that  there  is  some  difference  in 
the  Preface  thereof,  as  we  have  it  printed  in  Bishop 
Sparrow's  Collections,  from  that  which  is  in  the  MS. 
copy  sent  unto  the  Secretary.  That  Preface  is  all  the 
same,  but  only,  whereas  in  the  MS.  it  runs  thus :  [The 
Queen's  Majesty hath  by  the  assent  of  the  Metropo- 
litan, and  with  certain  other  the  Commissioners  in  causes 
ecclesiastical,  decreed  certain  rules  and  orders  to  be  used, 
as  hereafter  followeth]  :  in  the  said  Collections  we  read 

thus :    [The    Queen's    Majesty hath  by  her  letters 

directed  unto  the  Archbishop  of  Canterbury,  and  Metro- 
politan, required,  enjoined,  and  strictly  charged,  that  with 
assistance  and  conference  had  with  other  Bishops,  namely 
such  as  be  in  commission  for  causes  ecclesiastical,  some 
orders  may  be  taken  whereby  all  diversities  and  varieties 
among  them  of  the  clergy  and  the  people,  as  breeding 
nothing  but  contention,  offence,  and  breach  of  common 
charity,  and  be  against  the  laws,  good  usages,  and  ordi- 
nances of  the  realm,1  might  be  reformed  and  repressed, 
and  brought  to  one  manner  of  uniformity  throughout 
the  whole  realm :  that  the  people  may  thereby  quietly 
honour  and  serve  Almighty  God  in  truth,  concord,  unity, 
peace,  and  quietness,  as  by  her  Majesty's  said  letters 
more  at  large  doth  appear.  Whereupon  by  diligence, 
conference,  and  communication  in  the  same,  and  at  last 
by  assent  and  consent  of  the  persons  beforesaid,  these 
rules  ensuing  have  been  thought  meet  and  convenient  to 
be  used  and  followed.]  There  be  also  some  other  small 
alterations.  As  the  word  constitutions  in  the  MS. 

1  These  words  in  italics,  in  the  published  form  of  the  Advertise- 
ments, as  well  as  the  Queen's  letter  to  the  Primate,  show  that  the 
intention  was  to  level  up  to  the  standard  of  the  Ornaments  Rubric,  not 
to  level  down  to  a  lower  standard. 


216         THE  ADVEKTISEMENTS  HAD  ONLY 

is  changed  into  temporal  orders  in  the  Collections, 
and  positive  laws  in  discipline  is  changed  into  rules  in 
some  part  of  discipline,  I  have  also  diligently  compared 
the  printed  book  with  the  aforesaid  MS.  copy,  and 
find  them  different  in  many  places,  and  sundry  things 
are  left  out  which  are  in  the  copy;  the  Archbishop 
thinking  fit  in  that  manner  to  publish  them,  because  of 
their  want  of  the  stamp  of  authority  to  oblige  persons  to 
the  observance  of  them. 

The  difference  between  the  original  draft  of 
the  Advertisements  and  the  form  in  which  they  were 
published  in  1566,  here  pointed  out  by  Strype,  marks 
the  difference  between  the  stamp  of  authority  and 
the  absence  of  it.  The  Queen  kept  on  urging  the 
Primate  to  repress  the  lawlessness  of  the  Puritans. 
That  well-meaning  but  weak  man,  in  his  turn, 
implored  the  Queen  and  her  Council  to  give  the  seal 
of  authority  to  the  Episcopal  Advertisements.  This 
the  Queen  and  the  Council  steadily  refused  to  do. 
The  poor  Primate  complained  that  he  could  not 
enforce  the  Advertisements  on  his  own  authority, 
especially  in  London,  which  was  the  headquarters 
and  stronghold  of  the  Puritans,  and  which  was  under 
the  jurisdiction  of  a  Puritan  bishop.  '  An  ox,'  said 
the  distracted  Archbishop,  '  cannot  draw  more  than 
he  can.'  Strype  says  : — 

But  all  this  pains  and  labour  had  not  a  success 
answerable.  The  Queen  had  followed  the  Archbishop 
with  repeated  commands  to  press  the  ecclesiastical  orders. 
And  she  was  in  such  good  earnest  to  have  them  observed 
all  her  kingdom  over,  that  she  had  now  willed  the  Arch- 


EPISCOPAL  AUTHOEITY  217 

bishop  of  York  to  declare  in  his  province  also  her 
pleasure  determinately  to  have  them  take  place  there. 
But  her  Majesty's  Council  was  backward  to  empower 
and  countenance  our  Archbishop  in  his  endeavours  for 
that  purpose.  This,  with  the  clamour  and  rage  of  the 
dissenting  clergy  and  their  adherents,  and  the  hard  names 
they  gave  him,  quite  discouraged  the  good  man.  He 
liked  not  the  work,  especially  being  accompanied  with 
so  much  severity  ;  but  it  was  out  of  obedience  to  the 
Queen,  who  was  continually  calling  upon  him,  and 
ordering  the  Secretary  to  write  to  him  to  quicken  him. 
But  finding  his  own  inability  to  do  her  that  service  she 
required  of  him,  he  very  often  and  earnestly  sent  to  the 
Secretary,  that  the  Queen's  Council  might  stand  by  him 
with  their  authority.  But  he  could  not  obtain  his  desire.1 

On  April  28, 1566,  the  Primate  wrote  a  pathetic 
letter  to  Cecil,  in  which  he  says  : — 

The  Queen's  Majesty  willed  my  Lord  of  York  to 
declare  her  pleasure  determinately,  to  have  the  order  to 
go  forward.  I  trust  her  Highness  hath  devised  how  it 
may  be  performed.  I  utterly  despair  therein  as  of  my- 
self :  and  therefore  must  sit  still,  as  I  have  now  done, 
always  waiting  either  her  toleration,  or  else  further  aid. 
Mr.  Secretary,  can  it  be  thought  that  I  alone,  having 
sun  and  moon  against  me,  can  compass  this  difficulty  ? 
If  you,  of  her  Majesty's  Council,  provide  no  otherwise 
for  this  matter  than  as  it  appeareth  openly,  what  the 
sequel  will  be,  horresco  vel  reminiscendo  cogitare. 

At  last  the  Queen  authorised  the  publication 
of  the  Advertisements,  after  the  erasure  of  every 

1  Strype's  Parker,  i.  451.  On  March  12,  1566,  Parker  wrote  to 
Cecil  that  '  some  lawyers  be  in  opinion  that  it  is  hard  to  proceed  to 
deprivation,  having  no  more  warrant  but  the  Queen's  Majesty's  only 
word  of  mouth.'  (Correspondence,  p.  264).  He  never  got  more. 


218  THE  ABGUMENT 

sentence  and  expression  which  implied  the  formal 
and  legal  authority  of  the  Sovereign  under  the 
'  other  order '  clause  of  the  Act  of  Uniformity. 
The  Primate  now  felt  that  he  could  enforce  the 
Advertisements  at  least  upon  the  ringleaders  of  the 
lawless  Puritan  ministers,  and  he  proceeded  against 
them  with  more  rigour,  but  only  with  partial 
success.  The  Puritans  were  furious ;  but  they  were 
quick  to  mark  the  difference  between  the  validity 
of  the  Advertisements  and  documents  bearing  the 
legal  stamp.  For  instance,  in  a  letter  written  by 
one  of  the  leading  Puritans,  without  date,  but 
evidently  after  the  issue  of  the  Advertisements,  the 
writer  says  : — 

In  what  way  the  Sacraments  are  disfigured  by  human 
inventions  will  easily  appear  from  the  public  form  of 
prayer,  the  royal  Injunctions,  and  the  Admonitions,  or  (as 
they  call  them)  the  Advertisements,  of  the  Bishops. 

In  brief,  then,  the  state  of  the  case  is  as  follows  : 
On  coming  to  the  throne  the  Queen  made  a 
strenuous  effort  to  restore  the  First  Prayer-Book 
of  Edward  VI.  Failing  in  this,  she  had  the  Eubric 
against  the  Eucharistic  vestments  expunged  from 
the  Prayer-Book  of  1552,  with  sundry  other  changes, 
before  she  sanctioned  the  restoration  of  that  Book. 
Moreover,  she  insisted  on  the  addition  of  a  clause 
in  the  Act  of  Uniformity,  restoring  in  its  integrity 
the  rule  of  public  worship  in  legal  use  in  the  second 
year  of  Edward  VI.,  and  incorporated  this,  with  a 
slight  verbal  alteration,  in  a  Eubric  prefixed  to  the 


SUMMED  UP  219 

new  Book.  She  made  these  alterations  and  addi- 
tions a  sine  qua  non  of  her  sanctioning  the  Book. 
And  knowing  the  revolutionary  and  intractable 
temper  of  the  Puritans,  she  took  the  precaution — 
being  a  stickler  for  law — of  giving  herself  power  in 
the  Act  of  Uniformity  to  take  '  other  order  ' — ex- 
plained, a  few  lines  later,  as  adding  '  further  cere- 
monies and  rites  ' — as  occasion  might  require. 
Under  this  sanction  she  published,  the  following 
year,  under  the  authority  of  Royal  Letters  Patent, 
a  Latin  version  of  the  Prayer-Book,  with  some 
changes  which  brought  it  nearer  the  First  Prayer- 
Book  of  Edward  VI. ;  e.g.  the  restoration  of  the 
Rubric  sanctioning  the  reservation  of  the  Sacra- 
ment for  the  Sick.  Every  action  which  she  took 
in  virtue  of  the  '  other  order '  sanctioned  by  the  Act 
of  Uniformity  was  in  the  direction  of  enforcing  the 
law  of  the  Ornaments  Eubric.  In  no  single  case 
did  she  take  any  action  to  abridge  in  any  particular 
the  standard  of  public  worship  prescribed  by  that 
Rubric.  The  lawlessness  of  the  Puritans  had  at 
last  become  so  rampant  that  the  Queen  wrote  a 
strong  letter  to  the  Primate  enjoining  him  to  take 
action  with  his  suffragans  to  devise  means  for  curb- 
ing this  clerical  lawlessness  of  c  a  few  persons,'  and 
enforcing  obedience  to  the  '  established  laws.'  The 
Advertisements  of  1564  were  the  result.  But  the 
Queen,  while  urging  Parker  to  action  against  the 
Puritans,  persistently  refused  to  give  to  the  Adver- 
tisements the  sanction  provided  for  by  the  Act  of 


220  WHY  THE  QUEEN 

Uniformity.  In  1566  she  gave  an  informal  sanc- 
tion to  the  publication  of  the  Advertisements ;  and 
in  consequence  of  this  informality  the  original  title 
of  '  Admonitions  '  was  altered  to  '  Advertisements/ 
and  every  passage  and  word  were  struck  out 
which  implied  legal  authority.  Thus  shorn  of  legal 
authority,  the  Advertisements  were  published. 

Why  did  the  Queen  refuse  to  give  legal  authority 
to  the  Advertisements  ?  There  were  two  reasons. 
The  first  was  that  the  Advertisements  fell  short  of 
her  expectation.  It  is  clear  from  her  letter  to 
Parker  that  she  wished  him  and  his  colleagues  to 
make  the  Ornaments  Kubric  the  standard  at  which 
they  were  to  aim.  Instead  of  this  they  adopted  a 
rule  of  an  ideal  maximum  sanctioned  by  the  Statute 
and  Eubric — and  practised  by  the  vast  majority  of 
parish  priests,  as  is  evident  from  their  silence — and 
a  realisable  minimum,  to  be  enforced  on  the  re- 
bellious minority.  The  Queen  had  no  objection  to 
their  enforcing  this  minimum  rule  on  their  own 
authority ;  but,  with  an  unconsciously  prophetic 
eye  to  Privy  Council  law,  she  refused  to  give  the 
stamp  of  legality  to  anything  short  of  the  Orna- 
ments Eubric. 

Her  second  reason  was  partly  political,  and 
partly  personal.  Her  Council,  with  their  natural 
aversion  to  the  stirring  up  of  a  swarm  of  Puritan 
hornets  buzzing  about  their  ears,  acted  on  the 
Melbournean  maxim,  '  Can't  you  let  it  alone  ?  ' 
But  some  members  of  the  Council  and  powerful 


EEFUSED  HEE  SANCTION  221 

courtiers  were  in  sympathy  with  the  Puritans, 
thinking  them  the  winning  side.  Pre-eminent 
among  these  was  the  Queen's  favourite,  the  Earl 
of  Leicester.  To  him  Pilkington,  the  puritanical 
Bishop  of  Durham,  made  a  passionate  appeal  in 
favour  of  toleration  for  the  Puritans.1  Thus  the 
imbroglio  ended  in  the  compromise  of  publishing 
the  Advertisements,  with  the  informal  sanction  of 
the  Queen,  but  without  endowing  them  with  the 
force  of  legal  instruments.  Collier  says,  with  strict 
accuracy,  that  '  the  Queen,  as  was  observed,  refused 
to  confirm  these  "  Advertisements,"  though  drawn 
at  her  direction.'  And  he  adds  that  '  the  "  Adver- 
tisements "  were  checked  at  present  by  the  inter- 
posing of  the  Earl  of  Leicester,  of  Knolles,  and 
some  other  Court  patrons  of  Dissenters.' 2 

Soames,  an  expert  in  the  history  of  the  Beforma- 
tion,  says : — 

Hence  a  formal  approval  of  the  Lambeth  regulations 
was  found  unattainable.  Had  their  tenor  been  disliked, 
the  proceedings  upon  them  which  quickly  followed  never 
would  have  occurred.  Elizabeth,  however,  withheld  her 
name,  on  the  plea  that  it  was  unnecessary,  the  prelates 
having  already  sufficient  authority  to  act  as  she  wished. 
Their  position  thus  became  highly  difficult  and  invidious. 
It  is  plain  enough  that  any  reluctance  to  act  would  have 

1  Strype's  Parker,  iii.  69. 

2  Eccl.  Hist.  vi.  391,  392,  419 ;  cf.  Strype's  Parker,  i.  320.     '  In 
the  meantime  the  Archbishop  and  his  fellows  of  the  Ecclesiastical 
Commission  did  go  on,  as  far  as  they  could,  to  reduce  the  Church  to 
one  uniform  order,  the  Queen  still  calling  upon  them  so  to  do,  reckon- 
ing their  own  authority  sufficient.' 


222  THE  LEGAL  STATUS  OF  THE 

been  immediately  resented  at  Court,  yet  all  the  painful 
proceedings  in  which  they  soon  became  involved  might 
be  colourably  represented  as  chiefly  flowing  from  their 
own  intolerance.  .  .  .  This  publication  [of  the  Advertise- 
ments] cites  the  Queen's  letter  [to  Parker,  quoted  above] 
as  an  authority  ;  her  ministers  therefore  could  not  have 
disapproved  it.  No  signatures,  however,  are  printed,  but 
those  of  the  Primate  and  of  the  Bishops,  Grindal,  Cox, 
Guest,  Home,  and  Bullingham.  The  original  document 
appears  to  have  been  signed  by  others  besides  ;  but  this 
is  immaterial,  as  it  has  none  but  ecclesiastical  authority 
to  plead.1 

I  venture  to  assert,  therefore,  on  the  evidence, 
that  the  Advertisements  had  no  force  whatever  in 
law.  And  I  make  that  assertion  without  the 
slightest  bias,  and  purely  in  the  interest  of  historical 
accuracy.  For  the  truth  is  that  the  legal  status  of 
the  Advertisements  is  entirely  irrelevant  to  my  argu- 
ment, though  it  is  absolutely  essential  to  the  case 
set  up  by  the  Purchas  and  Ridsdale  judgments.  I 
have  shown  that  the  Advertisements  were  directed 
exclusively  against  the  Puritan  Nonconformists. 
In  her  letter  to  Parker,  already  quoted,  the  Queen 
draws  a  pointed  contrast  between  the  disobedience 
of  the  Puritans  and  the  silent  acquiescence  of  the 
mass  of  the  clergy  in  the  order  of  public  worship  pre- 
scribed by  the  Ornaments  Eubric.  Whittingham, 
Dean  of  Durham,  in  a  long  appeal  to  Leicester, 
indirectly  confirms  the  distinction  thus  marked  by 
the  Queen.  '  Alas !  my  lord,'  he  exclaims,  '  that 

1  EUxabetJutn  Religious  Hist.  pp.  42-3. 


ADVEETISEMENTS  IEEELEVANT  223 

such  compulsion  should  be  used  towards  us,  and 
so  great  lenity  towards  the  Papists.  How  many  of 
the  Papists  enjoy  liberty  and  livings  which  neither 
hath  sworn  obedience  to  the  Queen's  Majesty,  nor 
yet  do  any  part  of  duty  towards  their  miserable 
flocks,'  i.e.  after  Puritan  methods.1 

It  is  evident  from  all  this  that  the  *  other  order ' 
of  the  Elizabethan  Act  of  Uniformity  was  under- 
stood at  the  time  to  grant  power  to  correct  defects 
or  illegal  innovations,  not  to  abolish  the  legal 
standard.  In  addition  to  the  evidence  already 
offered  the  following — which  alone  would  be  deci- 
sive— may  conclude  this  chapter. 

In  a  letter  from  Home,  Bishop  of  Winchester, 
dated  July  17th,  1565,  there  occurs  the  following 
passage : — 

This  Act  [of  Uniformity]  cannot  be  repealed  unless 
by  the  agreement  and  consent  of  all  the  Estates  of  the 
Kingdom,  by  whose  concurrence  it  was  enacted.  .  .  .  We 
certainly  hope  to  repeal  this  clause  of  the  Act  next 
session.2 

The  Advertisements  were  the  result  of  the 
Queen's  letter  to  the  Primate,  urging  him  to  '  confer 
with  the  bishops  your  brethren,  namely,  such  as 

1  Strype's  Parker,  iii.  83.    The  relation  in  which  Leicester  was 
with  the  Puritans  is  shown  by  the  next  paragraph  of  this  letter  :  '  O 
noble  Earl,  at  least  be  our  patron  and  stay  in  this  behalf,  that  we  lose 
not  that  liberty  which  hitherto  by  the  Queen's  Majesty's  benignity  we 
have  enjoyed  with  comfort  and  quietness.' 

2  Zurich  Letters,  First  Series,  p.  142. 


224  BISHOPS  EOKNE  AND  GEINDAL 

be  in  commission  for  causes  ecclesiastical,'  for  the 
purpose  of  checking  both  neglect  and  violation  of 
the  Act  of  Uniformity.  The  letter  is  dated 
January  25th,  1564-5.  The  Primate  consulted  his 
colleagues  on  the  Ecclesiastical  Commission,  and 
on  the  3rd  of  March  following  sent  to  Cecil  the 
draft  of  the  Advertisements,  with  a  covering  letter 
in  which  he  says  that  '  the  devisers  are  only  the 
Bishops  of  London,  Winchester,  Ely,  Lincoln,  and 
myself.'  The  names  of  those  bishops  are  affixed 
to  the  document.  Yet  one  of  those  signatories, 
writing  some  time  afterwards,  declares  that  the  Act 
of  Uniformity  could  not  be  repealed  by  anything 
short  of  another  Act  of  Parliament,  and  he  and 
his  brother  Puritans  *  hoped  to  repeal  the  [Orna- 
ments] clause  of  the  Act  next  session.'  It  is  quite 
impossible  that  Home  could  have  written  thus, 
after  signing  the  Advertisements,  if  the  Advertise- 
ments had  been  intended  to  repeal  that  very  clause. 
Another  of  the  devisers  and  signatories  of  the 
Advertisements  was  Grindal,  at  the  time  Bishop  of 
London.  Writing  to  Bullinger,  in  the  year  1566, 
some  time  after  the  publication  of  the  Advertise- 
ments, he  says : — 

When  they  who  had  been  exiled  to  Germany  could 
not  persuade  the  Queen  and  Parliament  to  remove  these 
habits  out  of  the  Church,  though  they  had  long  endea- 
voured it,  by  common  consent  they  thought  it  best  not 
to  leave  the  Church  for  some  rites,  which  were  not  many, 
nor  in  themselves  wicked  ;  especially  since  the  purity  of 
the  Gospel  remained  safe  and  free  to  them. 


ON  THE  ADVEETISEMENTS  225 

Again : — 

When  the  Queen  began  first  to  reign,  the  Popish 
religion  being  cast  off,  she  reduced  religion  to  that  con- 
dition wherein  it  was  while  King  Edward  VI.  was  alive. 
And  to  this  all  the  States  of  the  kingdom  with  full 
consent  gave  their  voices  in  the  great  Council  of  the 
nation,  called  the  Parliament.  The  authority  of  this 
Council  is  so  great  that  the  laws  made  therein  could  not 
by  any  means  be  dissolved  unless  by  the  same  that  made 
them.  In  that  form  of  religion  set  up  by  King  Edward 
there  were  some  commands  concerning  the  habits  of 
ministers,  and  some  other  things,  which  some  good  men 
desired  might  be  abolished  or  mended.  But  the  authority 
of  the  law  hindered  them  from  doing  anything  that  way. 
Yet  the  law  allowed  the  Queen,  with  the  counsel  of 
some  of  the  Bishops,  to  alter  some  things.  But  indeed 
no  part  of  the  law  has  been  either  altered  or  diminished. 
(At  vero  de  lege  nihil  nee  mutatum  nee  imminutum  est.)  *• 

Now,  when  did  Grindal  write  this  letter  ?  In 
the  year  1571 :  that  is,  five  years  after  the  issue  of 
the  Advertisements.  He  had  become  Archbishop 
of  York  meanwhile.  Soon  after  the  publication  of 
the  Advertisements  he  declared  that  he  and  his 
friends  had  failed  to  persuade  Parliament  or  the 
Queen  to  repeal  or  modify  the  Ornaments  clause  of 
the  Act  of  Uniformity.  Five  years  afterwards  he 
declared  that  no  part  of  the  law  in  that  matter  had 
been  altered  or  modified.  Bishop  Home  of  Win- 
chester made  a  similar  declaration  some  months 
after  the  Advertisements  had  been  printed  and  sent 

1  Strype's  Life  of  Grvndal,  p.  156  ;  Zurich  Letters,  First  Series, 
p.  189. 

Q 


226  ADVERTISEMENTS  CONFESSEDLY 

to  Cecil ;  and  both  prelates  laid  down  the  sound 
constitutional  doctrine  that  the  law  could  not  be 
altered  in  any  way  without  a  fresh  Act  of  Parlia- 
ment. And  they  were  not  unimportant  persons. 
One,  after  occupying  the  See  of  London,  became 
Primate  of  the  Northern  Province.  The  other 
occupied  the  third  see  in  rank.  But,  above  all, 
both  helped  to  draw  up  the  Advertisements  and 
affixed  their  signatures  to  them.  Yet  neither  had 
the  faintest  idea  that  the  Advertisements  were  in- 
tended to  modify,  or  did  in  fact  modify  in  any  way, 
the  existing  law.  Is  this  credible  on  the  theory  of 
the  Purchas  and  Eidsdale  judgments  ?  Need  we 
any  further  proof  that  those  judgments  are  utterly 
untenable  in  law,  and  a  travesty  of  history  ?  Con- 
temporary and  subsequent  testimony  down  to  our 
own  time  confute  the  judgments.  The  Puritans 
admitted  that  the  Advertisements  were  aimed  at 
them,  and  strenuously  denied  them  any  legal  or 
statutory  authority,  and  the  House  of  Lords  in  1641 
pronounced  a  similar  judgment,  This  may  be 
substantiated  by  a  few  samples  : — 

Though  Her  Majesty's  most  excellent  name  be  used 
by  the  publishers  of  the  said  Advertisements  for  con- 
firmation of  them,  and  that  they  affirm  her  to  have  com- 
manded them  thereunto,  by  her  Highness'  letters  ;  yet 
because  the  book  itself  cometh  forth  without  her 
Majesty's  privilege,  and  is  not  printed  by  her  Majesty's 
printer,  nor  any  in  his  name,  therefore  it  carrieth  no  such 
credit  and  authority  with  it,  as  whereunto  her  Majesty's 
subjects  are  necessarily  bound  to  subscribe,  having  other 


DIEECTED  AGAINST  THE  PUEITANS       227 

laws,  and  other  Injunctions  under  her  Majesty's  name, 
and  authorized  by  her  Majesty's  privilege,  contrary  to 
the  same.1 

Another  writer  of  the  same  period  says  that  the 
Advertisements 

were  never  duly  published,  as  being  Advertisements 
only — in  name  ordinances,  and  not  in  deed ;  for  though 
her  Majesty's  name,  and  commandment  by  her  Majesty's 
Letters,  be  used  by  the  publisher  of  the  said  Advertise- 
ments, for  the  confirmation  of  them,  yet,  nevertheless, 
because  the  book  itself  cometh  forth  without  her 
Majesty's  privilege,2  and  hath  been  printed  not  by  her 
Majesty's  printer,  nor  any  in  his  name,  therefore  the 
same  carrieth  as  yet  no  such  credit  and  authority 
with  it,  as  whereunto,  propter  falsitatem  expressam  or 
veritatem  tacitam  in  impetracione,  her  Majesty's  subjects 
are  necessarily  bound  to  subscribe,  especially  having 
other  Injunctions  under  her  Majesty's  own  name,  and 
authorized  by  her  Majesty's  knowledge,  contrary  to  the 
same,  as  in  the  article  (concerning  not  preaching  without 
licenses)  shall  appear.3 

It  may  be  that  they  [the  Bishops]  know  their  order 
when  they  ride  in  their  scarlet  robes  before  the  Queen, 
and  how  to  poll  their  clergy  as  they  call  them  .  .  . 
or  how  to  rattle  up  these  new  fellows,  these  young  boys, 
that  will  not  obey  at  a  beck  their  Articles,  Advertise- 

1  An  Abstract  of  certain  Acts  of  Parliament ;  of  certain  of  her 
Majesty's  Injunctions;  of  certain  Canons,  etc.,  p.  33,  4to.  No  date, 
but  before  1584. 

3  The  Queen's  'Injunctions,'  of  1553,  have  on  their  title-page 
'  Cum  privilegio  Begice  Majestatis.J  The  Advertisements  never  had 
this  confirmation. 

3  The  copy  of  a  Letter  written  by  a  gentleman  in  the  country, 
unto  a  Londoner,  touching  an  Answer  to  the  Archb.  Articles.  A 
part  of  a  Register,  pp.  162,  163.  4to.  cir.  1590. 

•  § 


228  EEPUDIATED  BY  HOUSE  OF  LORDS  IN  1641 

ments,  Canons,  Caveats,  and  such  like  stuff  of  their  own 
forging.1 

They  snare  the  Church  of  God  between  that  book 
[of  Common  Prayer]  and  other  books  which  they  obtrude 
with  straight  charge  to  be  observed,  which  books  do 
differ  among  themselves,  as  the  book  of  Common  Prayer 
and  the  Injunctions  about  wafers,  the  Book  of  Common 
Prayer  and  the  Advertisements  about  the  Church  Vest- 
ments, the  Canons  against  the  Pontifical,  in  not  ordering 
of  ministers  sine  titulo,  &c.2 

I  have  already  quoted  the  Lords'  Committee  in 
1641,  which  consisted  of  ten  earls,  ten  bishops,  ten 
lay  barons,  and  a  number  of  other  learned  divines. 
Besides  their  pronouncement  in  support  of  the 
undiminished  statutory  force  of  the  Ornaments 
Rubric,  they  asserted  that  some  High  Churchmen 
were  apt  to  quote  '  the  Injunctions  and  Advertise- 
ments of  Queen  Elizabeth  which,'  says  the  Com- 
mittee's Report,  are  not  in  force  but  by  way  of 
commentary  and  imposition.' 3 

1  A  Second  Admonition  to  the  Parliament,  p.  23.     12mo.     No 
date :  cir.  1572  ? 

2  Ibid.  p.  10. 

3  Scobell's  Collection,  2658,  p.  69  ;  Harleian  Miscellany,  viii.  107. 


CHAPTEE  XVI 

DB.  GEE'S  THEORY 

SIB  LEWIS  DIBDIN,  in  his  cross-examination  of  me, 
made  a  great  point  of  the  theory  suggested  and 
supported  in  Dr.  Gee's  Elizabethan  Prayer-Book. 
Dr.  Gee,  he  said,  with  my  ready  assent,  c  is  an 
authority  who  has  a  right  to  speak  on  these 
matters.'  But  Sir  Lewis  was  in  error  in  supposing 
that  Dr.  Gee  is  one  of  '  many  and  great  authorities  ' 
who  have  adopted  that  theory.  On  the  contrary, 
Dr.  Gee  claims,  and  claims  truly,  the  credit  of 
being  the  original  and  sole  author  of  it.  I  have 
read  The  Elizabethan  Prayer-Book  with  great  care, 
and  found  it  ingenious  and  plausible,  and  argued 
with  that  ability,  moderation,  and  desire  to  be 
fair,  which  all  who  know  the  author  would  expect 
of  him.  But  I  remain  unconvinced  ;  and  as  the 
theory  traverses  my  case  at  an  important  point,  I 
am  forced  to  remove  it  out  of  my  way,  or  to  admit 
that  there  is  a  serious  flaw  in  my  argument. 

Dr.  Gee  rejects  the  current  view  of  the  revision 
of  the  Prayer-Book  in  1559,  namely,  that  a  Com- 
mittee of  Divines  was  appointed,  under  the  auspices 
of  Sir  William  Cecil,  to  compare  the  two  Prayer- 


230  THE  STOEY  BASED  ON  TWO  DOCUMENTS 

Books  of  Edward  VI.,  and  frame  a  new  book 
against  the  first  meeting  of  Elizabeth's  Parlia- 
ment. This  Committee,  according  to  the  common 
account,  consisted  of  '  Parker,  Bill,  May,  Cox, 
Grindal,  Whitehead,  and  Pilkington,  all  learned 
divines,  and  Sir  Thomas  Smith,'  a  learned  and  dis- 
tinguished layman,  at  whose  house  the  Com- 
mittee was  to  meet  for  the  revision.  Parker, 
however,  was  prevented  from  attending  by  illness, 
and  appointed,  as  Strype  suggests,  Guest  to  act 
in  his  place.  This  is  the  view  accepted  by  all 
historians  till  Dr.  Gee  :  e.g.  by  Camden,  Burnet,1 

1  Hist.  ii.  598-600. 

Dr.  Gee  (Elizabethan  Prayer-Boolt,  p.  11)  says  that  '  Burnet 
passes  over  the  matter  of  the  revision  entirely,  and  merely  calls 
attention  to  the  result.'  Surely  this  is  a  mistake.  Writing  of  Eliza- 
beth's accession,  Burnet  says : — 

'  As  her  first  impressions  in  her  father's  reign  were  in  favour  of 
such  old  rites  as  he  had  still  retained,  so  in  her  own  nature  she  loved 
state  and  some  magnificence  in  religion  as  well  as  in  everything  else. 
She  thought  that  in  her  brother's  reign  they  had  stript  it  too  much  of 
external  ornaments,  and  had  made  their  doctrine  too  narrow  in  some 
points ;  therefore  she  intended  to  have  some  things  explained  in  more 
general  terms,  that  all  parties  might  be  comprehended  by  them.  She 
inclined  to  keep  up  images  in  churches,  and  to  have  the  manner  of 
Christ's  presence  in  the  Sacrament  left  in  some  general  words ;  that 
those  who  believed  the  corporal  presence  might  not  be  driven  away 
from  the  Church  by  too  nice  an  explanation  of  it.  ...  She  considered 
nothing  could  make  her  power  greater  in  the  world  abroad  so  much  as 
the  uniting  all  her  people  together  at  home.  .  .  She  observed  that  in 
the  changes  formerly  made,  particularly  in  renouncing  the  Papacy  and 
making  some  alterations  in  worship,  the  whole  clergy  had  concurred ; 
and  so  she  resolved  to  follow  and  imitate  these  by  easy  steps.' 

Burnet  then  goes  on  : — 

'  There  was  a  long  consultation  had  about  the  method  of  the  changes 
she  should  make:  the  substance  of  which  shall  be  found  in  the 
Collection,  in  a  paper  where,  in  the  way  of  question  and  answer,  the 


THE  '  DEVICE  '  AND  GUEST'S  LETTER      231 

Strype,1  Collier,2  Dodd3  (Tierney's  edition),  and 
Hallam.4 

*  Two  documents,'  as  Dr.  Gee  says,  '  underlie 
the  whole  story.'  One  is  the  document  which 
goes  by  the  name  of  the  *  Device  for  Alteration 
of  Eeligion ' ;  the  other  is  Guest's  well-known 
letter.  Let  us  consider  the  ( Device  '  first.  Dr. 
Gee  examines  its  genesis  and  history ;  but  it  is  not 
necessary  for  my  purpose  to  follow  him  there.  I 
am  content  to  accept  his  conclusion  that  the  docu- 
ment '  is  Elizabethan ' ;  that  it  *  belongs  to  the 
beginning  of  Elizabeth's  reign,  and  bears  an  entry' 
of  that  date,  which  is  ( certainly  in  Cecil's  hand- 
writing.' 

The  '  Device '  is  an  answer  to  a  set  of  questions 
propounded  to  the  writer ;  whether  Sir  T.  Smith,  or 
Cecil,  or  some  one  unknown.  The  questions  are  : 

I.  When  the    alteration  shall    be    first  attempted? 

II.  What   dangers    may  ensue    upon    this   alteration? 

III.  What  remedy  for  these  matters  ?    IV.  What  shall 
be  the  manner  of  the  doing  of  it?     V.  What  may  be 

whole  design  of  it  is  laid  down.  This  draught  of  it  was  given  to  Sir 
William  Cecil,  and  does  exactly  agree  with  the  account  that  Camden 
gives.'  He  gives  a  marginal  reference  to  Camden  and  quotes  '  the 
heads  of  the  "  Device,"  '  which  he  gives  in  extenso  among  his 
'  Collections.'  (Hist.  ii.  598-600,  and  v.  327,  Pocock's  edition). 

In  this  passage,  let  me  say  in  passing,  Burnet  confirms  my  view 
that  Elizabeth  was  sincere  when  she  told  the  Spanish  Ambassador  on 
her  accession  that  she  wished  to  restore  the  state  of  religion  '  as  it  was 
left  by  her  father.' 

1  Ann,  i.  pt.  i.  119-122 ;  pt.  ii.  459. 

2  Hist.  vi.  187-190.  3  Hist.  ii.  122-4. 

*  Const.  Hist.  150.    Hallam  attributes  the  '  Device '  to  Cecil. 


232  THE  'DEVICE' 

done  of  her  Highness  for  her  own  conscience  openly 
before  the  whole  alteration ;  or  if  the  alteration  must 
tarry  longer,  what  order  be  fit  to  be  in  the  whole  realm 
as  an  interim  ?  VI.  What  noblemen  be  most  fit  to  be 
made  privy  to  these  proceedings  before  it  be  opened  to 
the  whole  council  ?  VII.  What  allowances  those  learned 
men  shall  have  for  the  time  they  are  about  to  review  the 
Book  of  Common  Prayer  and  order  of  ceremonies  and 
service  in  the  Church,  and  where  they  shall  meet  ? 

The  answer  to  the  first  question  is  that  the 
alterations  should  be  attempted  '  at  the  next 
Parliament,'  i.e.  Elizabeth's  first  Parliament. 

The  answer  to  the  second  question  is  that  the 
chief  dangers  to  be  expected  by  an  alteration  in 
religion  are  four  in  number : 

i.  The  Pope  '  will  be  incensed ;  will  excom- 
municate the  Queen's  Highness,  interdict  the 
realm,  and  give  it  to  prey  to  all  Princes  that  will 
enter  upon  it ;  and  incite  them  thereto  by  all 
manner  of  means. 

ii.  *  The  French  King  will  be  encouraged '  to 
attack  England,  as  '  his  people  '  will  regard  the 
English  *  not  only  as  enemies,  but  as  heretics,'  and 
those  in  England  who  will  be  alienated  by  changes 
in  religion  will  aid  the  French. 

iii.  Scotland  will  be  emboldened  by  these 
things,  and  will  co-operate  with  the  French. 

iv.  Ireland  will  resent  alterations  in  religion, 
and  will  make  trouble. 

v.  '  Many  people  of  our  own  will  be  very  much 
discontented ;  especially  these  sorts ' : 


THE  'DEVICE'  233 

(1)  Those  who  will  lose  office  and  employment 
by  the  change  of  government. 

(2)  Bishops  and  all  the  clergy  will  see  their  own 
ruin,  and  will  therefore  do   their  best  to  oppose 
alterations. 

(3)  In  addition,  'men  which  be  of  the  Papist 
sect ' — i.e.  who  accept  Papal  supremacy  with  its 
political  and  other  consequences — will   '  join  and 
conspire  with  the  bishops  and  clergy.' 

(4)  To  all  these  will  probably  be  joined  those 
who  are  suffering  from  the  consequences  of  war 
and  famine  and  will  resent  the  imposition  of  fresh 
taxation. 

(5)  When  the  Puritans  *  shall  see  peradventure 
that  some  old  ceremonies  shall  be  still  left,  and 
that  their  own  views  on  doctrine  and  ceremonial 
are   not   to    be    exclusively    sanctioned,   and    all 
others  abolished  and  disproved,  they  shall  be  dis- 
contented,    and    call    the     alteration    a    cloaked 
Papistry,  or  Mingle-mangle.' 

This  must  certainly  be  pronounced  a  singularly 
sagacious  and  accurate  diagnosis  of  the  whole 
situation,  quite  worthy  of  the  brain  of  Cecil,  and 
verified  almost  to  the  letter  by  the  event. 

How  were  these  serious  dangers  to  be  met  ? 

1.  The  French  danger  was  to   be  averted  by 
striving  to  make  peace  with  France,  and  stirring 
up  religious  feuds  in  that  country. 

2.  Home  was  implacable  and   could    not    be 
satisfied. 


234  THE  'DEVICE' 

3,  4.  Peace  with  France  would  carry  peace  with 
Scotland;  but  religious  strife  must  be  fomented 
there  also.  Berwick  must  be  fortified,  and  a 
frontier  force  organised.  There  must  also  be '  some 
expense  of  money  in  Ireland.' 

5.  The  subdivisions  of  the  fifth  danger  are 
dealt  with  separately : 

(1)  The  Marian  placemen,  who  were  advanced 
only  in  the  interest  of  the  Papacy,  must  be  got  rid 
of  as  a  standing  menace  and  as  a  warning  to  all 
waverers   between  the   old  regime   and  the  new. 
And  as  the  disaffected  are  displaced,  *  so  must  her 
Highness's  old  and  sure  servants,  who  have  tarried 
with  her,  and  not  shrunk  in  the  last  storms,  be 
advanced  with  authority  and  credit ;  that  the  world 
may  see  that  her  Highness  is  not  unkind  nor  un- 
mindful.' 

(2)  The  bishops  and  clergy,  if  they  prove  recal- 
citrant,  must   be   brought   under   terror   of  Prce- 
munire  and  held  to  ransom.     '  And  by  this  means 
well  handled  Her   Majesty's   necessity  of  money 
may  be  somewhat  relieved.' 

(3)  The  Papalists   pure  and  simple  are  to  be 
deprived  of  power  as  much  as  possible  :    e.g.  *  in 
commission  of  peace  in  the  shires.'     c  No  office  of 
jurisdiction   or  authority  to    be   in    any   discon- 
tented man's  hand,  as  far  as  justice  or  law  may 
extend.' 

(4)  Those  disaffected  by  impoverishment   and 
excessive  taxation  are  to  be  managed  '  by  gentle 


THE  '  DEVICE  '  235 

and  dulce  handling  by  the  Commissioners,'  but  to 
be  summarily  suppressed  by  military  force  if  they 
should  attempt  any  overt  acts  of  insubordination. 

(5)  As  for  the  Puritans,  who  '  could  be  content 
to  have  religion  altered,  but  would  have  it  go  too 
far,  the  strait  laws  upon  the  promulgation  of  the 
Book,  and  severe  execution  of  the  same  at  the 
first,  will  so  repress  them  that  it  is  great  hope  it 
shall  touch  but  a  few.  And  better  it  were  that  they 
should  suffer  than  her  Highness  or  commonwealth 
should  shake  or  be  in  danger.  And  to  this  they 
must  well  take  heed  that  draw  the  Book.' 

To  the  question :  '  What  shall  be  the  manner 
of  doing  it  ? '  the  '  Device '  recommends  the 
divines  already  named  as  a  Committee  to  draw 
up  a  revised  Prayer-Book.  Sir  Thomas  Smith  is 
to  convene  the  Committee  of  Eevision  at  his  house, 
where  an  allowance  of  food,  and  fuel,  and  wine  is 
to  be  provided  for  the  purpose.  Meanwhile,  'a 
strait  prohibition  is  to  be  made  of  all  innovation 
until  such  time  as  the  Book  come  forth,  as  well 
that  there  should  be  no  changes  in  religion,  which 
would  take  away  authority  in  the  common  people's 
estimation ;  as  also  to  exercise  the  Queen's 
Majesty's  subjects  to  obedience.' 

The  '  Device '  recommends  that  in  the  interval 
between  the  Queen's  accession  and  the  new  Prayer- 
Book  her  Majesty  should  make  as  few  changes  as 
possible,  such  as  'receiving  the  Communion  as 
her  Highness  pleaseth  on  high  feasts' — that  is, 


236  A  THIRD  DOCUMENT 

I  suppose,  according  to  the  ordinary  Latin  Mass,  in 
her  private  chapel,  either  in  one  kind  or  in  both ; 
'  and  that  when  there  be  more  chaplains  [than  one] 
at  Mass  they  do  always  communicate  in  both  kinds.' 

The  '  Device '  was  meanwhile  to  be  kept  secret, 
the  Marquis  of  Northampton,  the  Earl  of  Bedford, 
the  Earl  of  Pembroke,  and  the  Lord  John  Grey 
being  alone  {  made  privy  to  these  proceedings.' 

Another  important  document  which  Dr.  Gee 
enlists  in  the  service  of  his  theory  is  '  The  Dis- 
tresses of  the  Commonwealth,'  endorsed  by  Armigail 
Wood,  a  Privy  Councillor  under  Edward  VI.  He 
thinks — and  I  agree  with  him — that  the  document 
was  drawn  up  at  the  request  of  Cecil.  It  paints  the 
same  gloomy  picture  of  the  state  of  the  nation 
that  Cecil  gives  in  the  State  paper  which  I  have 
quoted  on  p.  68.  Here  is  the  terrible  *  summary 
rehearsal ' : — 

The  Queen  poor.  The  realm  exhausted.  The  nobility 
poor  and  decayed.  Want  of  captains  and  soldiers.  The 
people  out  of  order.  Justice  not  executed.  All  things 
dear.  Excess  in  meat,  drink,  and  apparel.  Division 
among  ourselves.  Wars  with  France  and  Scotland.  The 
French  king  bestriding  the  realm,  having  one  foot  in 
Calais  and  the  other  in  Scotland.  Steadfast  enmity  but 
no  friendship  abroad. 

Very  wise  is  the  advice  which  this  trusted  agent 
of  Cecil  gives  in  the  emergency : — 

This  case  is  to  be  warily  handled,  for  it  requireth  great 
cunning  and  circumspection  both  to  reform  religion  and 


ALSO  INSPIEED  BY  CECIL  237 

to  make  unity  between  the  subjects,  being  at  square 
for  the  respect  thereof,  and  as  I  pray  God  to  grant  us 
concord  both  in  the  agreement  upon  the  cause  and  state 
of  religion,  and  among  ourselves  for  the  account  of 
Catholic  and  Protestant :  so  would  I  wish  that  you  [Cecil] 
would  proceed  to  the  reformation  having  respect  to  quiet 
at  home,  the  affairs  you  have  in  hand  with  foreign  princes, 
the  greatness  of  the  Pope,  and  how  dangerous  it  is  to 
make  alteration  in  religion,  specially  in  the  beginning  of 
a  prince's  reign.  Glasses  with  small  necks,  if  you  pour 
into  them  any  liquor  suddenly  or  violently,  will  not  be  so 
filled,  but  refuse  to  receive  that  same  that  you  would  pour 
into  them.  Howbeit,  if  you  instil  water  into  them  by  a 
little  and  little  they  are  soon  replenished. 

In  '  The  Device  for  Alteration  of  Religion  in 
the  First  Year  of  Queen  Elizabeth,'  and  in  *  The 
Distresses  of  the  Commonwealth,  with  the  means 
to  remedy  them,'  we  have  a  panoramic  view  of  the 
state  of  the  nation,  political,  religious,  and  social, 
on  Elizabeth's  accession,  with  suggestions  how  to 
meet  the  crisis.  The  two  pictures  recognise  the 
need  of  great  caution  in  meddling  with  religion. 
There  are  two  extremes  with  whom  compromise 
seems  impossible  :  the  implacable  Papalists  on  the 
one  hand  and  the  irreconcilable  Puritans  on  the 
other.  Between  the  two  is  the  bulk  of  the  nation, 
who  must  be  managed  with  foresight,  prudence, 
and  tact.  Changes  in  religion  must  be  instilled 
'  by  a  little  and  little  '  into  the  '  narrow  glasses  '  of 
the  public  mind ;  not  '  suddenly  or  violently,'  lest 
the  nation  refuse  to  receive  them. 


238  THE  CROSS  CURRENTS 

Such  was  the  mental  attitude  of  Cecil  and 
those  who  were  in  his  confidence  in  projecting  the 
revision  of  the  Prayer-Book  for  Elizabeth's  first 
Parliament.  In  these  preliminary  consultations 
and  negotiations  the  Puritans  were  not  considered 
at  all  except  as  troublesome  fanatics  who  were  to 
be  kept  in  order.  Some  of  their  leaders  bitterly 
complained  of  this  neglect,  so  different  from  the 
deference  paid  to  them  in  the  latter  part  of 
Edward  VI. 's  reign.  In  fact,  everything  conspires 
to  show  that  at  the  beginning  of  Elizabeth's  reign 
the  policy  which  approved  itself  to  the  minds  of 
Elizabeth  and  her  confidential  advisers  was  to 
make  as  little  change  as  possible  in  the  outward 
aspect  of  religion,  while  liberating  the  nation  com- 
pletely from  the  domination  of  the  Papacy.  It 
was  to  be  a  reformation  on  the  lines  of  Henry  VIII. 
rather  than  on  the  model  of  Edward  VI.  The 
two  documents  which  we  have  been  considering 
certainly  justify  the  belief  that  Elizabeth  was  quite 
sincere  when  she  disclosed  to  the  Spanish  Ambas- 
sador that  she  was  resolved  to  restore  religion  as  it 
was  left  by  her  father. 

Some  of  her  most  intimate  and  influential 
friends,  however,  such  as  Dudley,  Walsingham,  and 
Knolles,  were  strongly  predisposed  in  favour  of  the 
Puritans,  while  Cecil  and  Bacon  supported  the 
cautious  and  sagacious  policy  suggested  by  the 
perils  which  beset  the  Queen's  position.  The 
character  of  the  Committee  appointed  to  revise 


IN  THE  EEVISION  OP  1559  239 

Edward's  two  Prayer-Books  was  probably  a  com- 
promise between  these  two  cross  currents,  while 
Sir  Thomas  Smith,  the  chairman  and  convener  of 
the  Committee,  might  be  trusted  to  guide  their 
deliberations  with  skill  and  prudence.  He  had 
rare  qualifications  for  such  a  task.  Though  sym- 
pathising, like  Cecil  himself,  with  the  new  learning, 
he  had  a  conscience  sufficiently  tolerant  to  enable 
him,  like  Cecil,  to  serve  under  Edward  VI.  and  live 
unmolested  under  Mary,  and  to  enjoy  some  degree 
of  favour  from  the  Court,  and  even  from  the  Pope ; 
and  his  philosophical  temper,  great  learning,  and 
experience  as  a  diplomatist  all  pointed  him  out  as 
an  ideal  chairman  for  a  committee  appointed  to 
frame  an  opportunist  policy  in  the  spirit  of  the 
'  Device '  and  of  the  State.  Paper  on  '  The  Dis- 
tresses of  the  Commonwealth.'  That  he  sympa- 
thised with  the  moderate  party  of  reformers  in 
matters  of  ceremonial  seems  plain  from  the  furni- 
ture of  his  chapel  in  1569 :  an  c  altar  of  walnut 
tree ;  vestment  and  albe  for  the  Priest ;  and 
a  pair  of  virginals  instead  of  an  organ.' l 

Of  course  a  student  of  history  is  not  bound  by 
authorities,  however  numerous  or  eminent,  when 
he  believes  that  he  has  evidence  to  prove  them 
wrong  in  any  particular,  and  Dr.  Gee  does  well  to 
question  the  traditional  view  and  put  a  more 

1  Life,  p.  171.  This  was  three  years  after  the  publication  of  the 
Advertisements,  when  the  Eucharistic  vestments  were  all  abolished  in 
law  and  fact,  according  to  the  Purchas  Judgment. 


240         DE.  GEE'S  VIEW  TESTED  BY  THE 

accurate  one,  as  he  believes,  in  its  place.  I  believe, 
for  reasons  which  I  shall  presently  give,  that  the 
weight  of  evidence  is  against  him.  Indeed  the 
documents  to  which  he  appeals  appear  to  me  to 
suggest  a  contrary  conclusion.  But  we  shall  see. 

Dr.  Gee's  view,  in  so  far  as  it  conflicts  with  the 
argument  of  this  book,  may  be  briefly  stated.  He 
adds  that  there  was  no  desire  on  the  part  of  Eliza- 
beth on  her  accession  to  revive  the  Book  of  1549. 
This  he  infers  from  the  fact,  as  he  thinks,  that 
c  the  Queen  was  the  consistent  friend  of  those  who 
upheld  the  Book  of  1552  during  all  the  months 
through  which  it  was  under  discussion.  She  is 
said  to  have  openly  declared  her  satisfaction  at  the 
return  of  the  exiles  in  December.  She  desired  the 
presence  of  Peter  Martyr  in  England.  She  was 
regarded  by  Cox  as  the  special  patroness  of  what 
he  calls  the  sincere  religion  of  Christ.  And  Jewel, 
who  was  most  sensitive  and  suspicious,  says  of  her  : 
"  We  have  a  wise  and  religious  Queen,  and  one 
too  who  is  favourably  and  propitiously  disposed 
towards  us." 

All  this  must  be  taken  with  considerable  quali- 
fication. It  expresses  the  sanguine  hopes  of  the 
returning  exiles  rather  than  any  authentic  evidence 
of  the  disposition  of  the  Queen.  All  her  public 
utterances  at  the  time  are  in  direct  antagonism 
to  the  views,  intentions,  and  policy  of  '  those  who 
upheld  the  Book  of  1552.'  I  have  given  ample 
proof  of  this  in  previous  chapters,  but  may  quote 


DECLARATIONS  OF  ELIZABETH  241 

here  the  following  passage  from  her  reply  to  the 
representations  made  to  her  by  foreign  Princes 
on  behalf  of  the  ejected  bishops  who  refused  to 
accept  the  new  order  of  things.  While  promising 
1  to  treat  them  gently,'  there  was  a  point  beyond 
which  she  could  not  go  : — 

But  to  grant  them  churches  to  officiate  in  their  worship, 
and  keep  up  a  distinct  communion,  were  things  which 
the  public  interest,  her  own  honour  and  conscience,  could 
not  allow ;  neither  was  there  any  reason  for  such  an 
indulgence,  for  there  was  no  new  faith  propagated  in 
England :  no  religion  set  up  but  that  which  was  com- 
manded by  our  Saviour,  practised  by  the  Primitive 
Church,  and  unanimously  approved  by  the  Fathers  of  the 
best  antiquity.1 

This  is  in  line  with  all  her  declarations  on 
public  policy  and  her  own  private  wishes,  and  it  is 
completely  out  of  sympathy  with  the  policy  and 
intentions  of  the  returned  exiles.  Elizabeth  neither 
intended  nor  wished  to  set  up  a  new  religion. 
They  did.  Her  sympathies  were  with  the  old 
ceremonial  of  public  worship,  purged  of  supersti- 
tious excrescences.  They  abhorred  the  old  cere- 
monial and  desired  to  set  up  a  new  Church  on  the 
Genevan  model,  stripped  of  the  accessories  of  tradi- 
tional ceremonies  and  vestures.  One  of  the  most 
conservative  of  them,  perhaps,  was  Jewel,  and  we 
have  in  the  following  passage  a  specimen  of  his 
attitude  towards  Catholic  antiquity  in  the  matter 

1  Collier,  vi.  252. 

B 


242  AND  BY  THE  ATTITUDE 

of  religious  worship.  The  letter  from  which  the 
extract  is  taken  was  written  to  Peter  Martyr  at 
Zurich.  It  is  without  date,  but  internal  evidence 
points  to  the  period  when  the  question  of  restoring 
Edward's  second  Book,  with  its  bare  ceremonial, 
was  under  discussion.  Jewel  describes  himself  and 
his  fellow  exiles  as  '  strangers  at  home,'  and  longs 
to  be  back  in  Zurich  ;  so  little  sympathy  does  he 
find  in  England  from  those  in  authority.  He  hopes 
against  hope  that  religion  will  be  restored  as  it  was 
at  the  end  of  Edward's  reign : — 

But,  as  far  as  I  can  perceive  at  present,  there  is  not 
the  same  alacrity  among  our  friends  as  there  lately  was 
among  the  Papists  [i.e.  the  clergy  at  large,  and  the  great 
majority  of  the  laity].  So  miserably  is  it  ordered  that 
falsehood  is  armed,  while  truth  is  not  only  unarmed  but 
also  frequently  odious.  The  scenic  apparatus  of  divine 
worship  is  now  in  debate ;  and  those  very  things  which 
you  and  I  have  so  often  laughed  at  are  now  seriously  and 
solemnly  taken  to  heart  by  some  persons  (for  we  are  not 
consulted),  as  if  the  religion  of  Christ  could  not  exist 
without  clothes  (sine  pannis).  We  are  not  indeed  so 
detached  in  mind  as  to  take  these  fooleries  seriously. 
Others  are  seeking  after  a  golden,  which  seems  to  me 
rather  a  leaden,  mediocrity,  and  cry  '  The  half  is  better 
than  the  whole.' l 

Here  we  have  Jewel's  own  confession  that  he 
objected  to  what  would  now  be  admitted  by  Church- 
men of  all  schools  to  be  no  more  than  the  common 
decencies  of  public  worship. 

1  Zurich  Letters,  i.  23. 


OP  PUEITAN  LEADEES  243 

In  another  letter  to  Peter  Martyr  in  the  year 
1566,  when  the  Advertisements  were  issued  to  force 
the  Puritans  to  conform  to  a  minimum  of  cere- 
monial, Jewel  writes : — 

The  contest  respecting  the  linen  surplice,  about  which 
I  doubt  not  but  you  have  heard  either  from  our  friend 
Abel  or  Parkhurst,  is  not  yet  at  rest.  That  matter  still 
somewhat  disturbs  weak  minds.  And  I  wish  that  all, 
even  the  slightest,  vestiges  of  Popery  could  be  removed 
from  our  churches,  and  above  all  from  our  minds.  But 
the  Queen  is  unable  to  endure  at  this  time  the  least 
alteration  in  matters  of  religion.1 

Again,  on  February  4,  1560 : — 

The  controversy  [about  the  retention  of  the  crucifix 
in  public  worship]  is  as  yet  undecided ;  yet,  as  far  as  I 
can  see,  I  shall  not  again  write  to  you  as  a  bishop.  For 
matters  are  come  to  that  pass,  that  either  the  crosses  of 
silver  and  tin,  which  we  have  everywhere  broken  in 
pieces,  must  be  restored  or  our  bishoprics  relinquished.2 

A  month  previously  Sampson,  one  of  the  Puritan 
stalwarts,  referring  to  the  retention  of  the  crucifix 
and  candles,  declares  that  '  the  wretched  multitude 
are  not  only  rejoicing  at  this,  but  will  imitate  it  of 
their  own  accord.'3  Then  he  asks  dolefully: — 

What  can  I  hope  when  three  of  our  lately  appointed 
bishops  are  to  officiate  at  the  table  of  the  Lord :  one  as 
priest,  another  as  deacon,  and  a  third  as  sub-deacon, 
before  the  crucifix,  or  at  least  not  far  from  it,  with 

1  Zurich  Letters,  i.  148.  2  Ibid.  I  68. 

s  One  of  the  many  proofs  that  popular  feeling  was  against  the 
Puritans. 

R  2 


244  PUKITANS  ANTAGONISTIC  TO 

candles,  and  habited  in  the  golden  vestments  of  the 
Papacy;  and  are  thus  to  celebrate  the  Lord's  Supper 
without  any  sermon  ?  : 

On  April  1,  1560,  Bishop  Sandys,  writing  to 
Peter  Martyr,  says : — 

We  had,  not  long  since,  a  controversy  respecting 
images.  The  Queen's  Majesty  considered  it  not  contrary 
to  the  word  of  God,  nay,  rather  for  the  advantage  of  the 
Church,  that  the  image  of  Christ  crucified,  together  with 
those  of  Mary  and  John,  should  be  placed,  as  heretofore, 
in  some  conspicuous  part  of  the  church,  where  they 
might  more  easily  be  seen  by  all  the  people.  Some  of  us 
[Puritan  bishops]  thought  far  otherwise,  and  more  especi- 
ally as  all  images  of  every  kind  were  at  our  last  visitation 
not  only  taken  down,  but  also  burnt,  and  that  too  by 
public  authority,  and  because  the  ignorant  and  supersti- 
tious multitude  are  in  the  habit  of  paying  adoration  to 
this  idol  above  all  others.  As  to  myself,  because  I  was 
rather  vehement  in  this  matter,  and  could  by  no  means 
consent  that  an  occasion  of  stumbling  should  be  afforded 
to  the  Church  of  God,  I  was  very  near  being  deposed 
from  my  office,  and  incurring  the  displeasure  of  the 
Queen.2 

Cox,  recently  consecrated  bishop  of  Ely,  wrote 
about  the  same  time  to  Peter  Martyr  :— 

We  are  still  compelled,  to  our  great  distress,  to  tolerate 
crucifixes  in  ouj  churches.3 

Strype  may  be  quoted  here  : — 

Cox,  bishop  of  Ely,  being  appointed  to  minister  the 
Sacrament  before  her  there  [in  the  Eoyal  Chapel],  made 

1  Zurich  Letters,  i.  63. 
3  Ibid.  i.  73.  *  Ibid.  i.  66. 


ELIZABETH'S  POLICY  245 

it  a  matter  of  conscience  to  do  it  in  a  place  which  he 
thought  so  dishonoured  by  images  ;  and  could  scarce  be 
brought  to  officiate  there,  denying  it  a  great  while  ;  and 
when  he  did  it,  it  was  with  a  trembling  conscience,  as  he 
said.1 

The  reader  will  now  see,  I  think,  that  we  must 
take  with  many  grains  of  salt  Dr.  Gee's  assertion 
that  '  Elizabeth  was  the  consistent  friend  of  those 
who  upheld  the  Book  of  1552  during  all  the 
months  through  which  it  was  under  discussion.' 
He  names  in  particular  Peter  Martyr,  Jewel,  and 
Cox.  But  Jewel  declares,  as  we  have  just  seen, 
that  the  returned  exiles  were  not  consulted  at  all 
in  the  matter.  And  all  the  letters  from  which  I 
have  quoted  were  written  to  Peter  Martyr,  who 
was  in  Zurich  at  the  time.  The  extracts,  moreover, 
exhibit  Jewel,  Cox,  and  the  rest  at  the  antipodes 
of  feeling  from  the  Queen  as  regards  the  cere- 
monial of  public  worship.  Men  of  the  eminence 
and  strength  of  character  of  Jewel  and  Sandys 
confess  that  they  narrowly  escaped  deposition  at 
the  instance  of  the  Queen  on  account  of  their 
opposition  to  her  wishes  in  this  matter.  I  am 
surprised,  under  the  circumstances,  that  Dr.  Gee 
should  write  with  regard  to  Jewel,  Cox,  Peter 
Martyr,  and  the  other  Puritan  leaders : — 

It  is  inconceivable  that  such  uniform  satisfaction  with 
the  Queen's  attitude  could  have  been  expressed  by  such 

1  Armals,  i.  i.  260. 


246  CECIL'S  WISHES 

writers  in  the  early  months  of  1559,  if  she  were  known  to 
be  desirous  of  introducing  the  Book  of  1549. 

1  Uniform  satisfaction  ' !  when  the  most  dis- 
tinguished of  them  confessed  that  they  narrowly 
escaped  deposition  for  their  contumacy.  There 
were  complaints,  loud  and  bitter,  of  the  Queen 
going  back  behind  the  Book  of  1552  '  for  the  sake 
of  a  newer  reformation.' l 

The  extract  from  the  letter  of  Sandys  to  Peter 
Martyr  is,  moreover,  important  for  another  reason. 
He  was  nearly  deposed,  he  says,  for  taking  down 
and  destroying,  at  the  last  visitation  of  the  Eccle- 
siastical Commissioners,  crucifixes  and  other 
images,  '  and  that  too  by  public  authority '  :  i.e. 
by  the  authority  of  Ecclesiastical  Commissioners. 
But  the  Ecclesiastical  Commissioners  had  no  such 
authority.  They  were  authorised  to  destroy  images 
which  had  been  abused  for  purposes  of  superstition, 
and  this  they  interpreted  as  empowering  them  to 
destroy  all  images.  Even  in  Henry  VIII. 's  reign 
Commissions  were  authorised  to  destroy  objects 
of  superstition.  The  reckless,  indiscriminate,  and 
often  illegal  iconoclasm  of  Elizabeth's  Commis- 
sioners shows  the  utter  irrelevancy  of  citing  visita- 
tion inquiries  and  articles  as  evidence  of  what  the 
law  enjoined  or  allowed. 

'  As  for  Cecil,'  Dr.  Gee  says,  '  there  is  no  shred 
of  proof,  apart  from  Guest's  letter,  that  he  wished 

1  Zurich  Letters,  ii.  161. 


AND  GUEST'S  LETTER  247 

to  bring  the  first  Book  before  Parliament.'  '  No 
shred  of  proof '  is  surely  rather  too  strong  an  ex- 
pression. Cosin  says  :  '  It  was  well  known  that 
the  Lord  Treasurer  Burleigh  used  them  [altar 
lights  at  the  celebration  of  the  Eucharist]  con- 
stantly in  his  chapel,  with  other  ornaments  of  fronts, 
palls,  and  books,  upon  his  altar.' l  A  man  whose 
predilections  are  thus  marked,  and  who  conformed  to 
the  established  religion  all  through  Mary's  reign, 
would  certainly  have  preferred  the  Prayer-Book 
of  1549  to  that  of  1552,  and  was  most  likely,  as  it 
seems  to  me,  to  make  the  suggestions  which  Guest 
answers.  But  let  us  consider  Guest's  letter,  point 
by  point,  in  connection  with  Dr.  Gee's  theory. 
I  quote  it  at  length  here  instead  of  relegating  it 
to  the  appendix,  in  order  that  the  reader  may  have 
it  before  him  as  I  proceed  with  my  criticism  : — 

Eight  Honourable, — That  you  might  well  understand 
that  I  have  neither  ungodly  allowed  anything  against  the 
Scriptures,  neither  steadfastly  done  anything  contrary  to 
my  writing  ;  neither  rashly,  without  just  cause,  put  away 
that  which  might  be  better  left  out,  I  am  so  bold  to 
write  to  your  honour  some  causes  of  the  order  taken  in 
the  new  service,  which  enterprise,  though  you  might 
justly  reprove  for  the  simple  handling,  yet  I  trust  you 
will  take  it  well  for  my  good  meaning.  Therefore,  com- 
mitting your  honourable  estate  to  the  great  mercy  of 
God,  and  following  the  intent  of  my  writing,  thus  I  begin 
the  matter. 

1  Works,  v.  441. 


248  GUEST'S  LETTEE 

OF  CEREMONIES. 

Ceremonies  once  taken  away,  as  evil  used,  should  not 
be  taken  again,  though  they  be  not  evil  in  themselves, 
but  might  be  well  used,  and  that  for  four  reasons.  The 
first,  because  the  Galatians  were  reproved  of  Paul  for 
receiving  again  the  ceremonies  which  once  they  had 
forsaken,  bidding  them  to  stand  in  the  liberty  wherein 
they  were  called,  and  forbidding  them  to  wrap  themselves 
in  that  yoke  of  bondage,  saying  they  builded  again  that 
which  they  had  destroyed,  and  reproving  Peter  for  that 
by  his  dissembling  he  provoked  the  Gentiles  to  the  cere- 
monial law,  which  they  had  left,  looking  back  thereby 
from  the  plough  which  they  had  in  hand.  The  second 
cause,  because  Paul  forbiddeth  [sic]  us  to  abstain  not  only 
from  that  which  is  evil,  but  also  from  that  which  is  not 
evil,  but  yet  hath  the  appearance  of  evil.  For  this  cause 
Hezekiah  destroyed  the  brazen  serpent,  and  Epiphanius 
the  picture  of  CHRIST.  The  third  cause,  because  the 
Gospel  is  a  short  word  putting  away  the  law,  which  stood 
in  decrees  and  ceremonies,  and  a  light  and  easy  yoke 
delivering  us  from  them.  Therefore  it  is  said  that  we 
should  worship  GOD  in  spirit  and  truth,  and  not  in 
ceremonies  and  shadows  also  as  did  the  Jews.  And  Paul 
likeneth  us  Christians,  for  our  freedom  from  ceremonies, 
to  men  which  live  in  all  liberty,  and  the  Jews,  for  their 
bondage  in  them,  to  men  living  in  thraldom.  Wherefore 
Austin,  writing  to  Januarius  against  the  multitude  of 
ceremonies,  thus  saith,  '  CHRIST  hath  bound  us  to  a  light 
burden,  joining  us  together  with  Sacraments  in  number 
most  few,  in  keeping  most  easy,  in  significance  most 
passing.'  And  in  the  next  epistle  following  he  bewaileth 
the  multitude  of  ceremonies  in  his  time  and  calleth  them 
'  presumptuous,'  which  were  but  few  in  respect  of  the 
number  of  ours.  The  fourth  cause  is  because  these 
ceremonies  were  devised  of  man,  and  abused  to  idolatry, 


GUEST'S  LETTER  249 

for  CHEIST  with  his  Apostles  would  not  wash  their  hands 
before  meat,  though  of  itself  it  was  an  honest  civil  order, 
because  it  was  superstitiously  used.  Paul  forbad  the 
Corinthians  to  come  to  the  Gentiles'  tables  where  they 
did  eat  the  meat  which  was  offered  to  idols,  though  an 
idol  was  nothing,  nor  that  which  was  offered  to  it  any- 
thing. 

OF  THE  CEOSS. 

Epiphanius  in  an  epistle  which  he  wrote  to  John, 
Bishop  of  Jerusalem,  and  is  translated  by  Jerome,  sheweth 
how  he  did  cut  in  pieces  a  cloth  in  a  church,  whereon  was 
painted  the  image  of  CHEIST  or  of  some  saint,  because  it 
was  against  the  Scripture,  and  counselleth  the  Bishop  to 
command  the  priests  of  the  same  church  to  set  up  no  more 
any  such  cloth  in  the  same  place,  calling  it  a  superstition 
to  have  any  such  in  the  church.  Leo  the  Emperor,  with 
a  Council  holden  at  Constantinople,  decreed  that  all  images 
in  the  church  should  be  broken.  The  same  was  decreed 
long  before  in  the  provincial  Council  of  Eliberis,  Spain, 
cap.  30. 

OP  PEOCESSION. 

Procession  is  superfluous,  because  we  may  (as  we  ought 
to  do)  pray  for  the  same  in  church  that  we  pray  for 
abroad ;  yea,  and  better  too,  because  when  we  pray  abroad 
our  mind  is  not  set  upon  GOD  for  sight  of  things  (as 
experience  teacheth)  as  when  we  pray  in  the  church,  where 
we  have  no  occasion  to  move  our  mind  withal. 

OF  VESTMENTS. 

Because  it  is  thought  sufficient  to  use  but  a  surplice  in 
baptizing,  reading,  preaching,  and  praying,  therefore  it  is 
enough  also  for  the  celebrating  of  the  Communion.  For  if 
we  should  use  another  garment  herein,  it  should  seem  to 
teach  us  that  higher  and  better  things  be  given  by  it  than 
be  given  by  the  other  service,  which  we  must  not  believe. 


250  GUEST'S  LETTBK 

For  in  baptism  we  put  on  CHEIST.  In  the  word  we  eat 
and  drink  CHEIST  as  Jerome  and  Gregory  write.  And 
Austin  saith  the  word  is  as  precious  as  this  Sacrament  in 
saying  '  He  sinneth  as  much  which  negligently  heareth  the 
word  as  he  which  willingly  letteth  CHEIST'S  BODY  to  fall 
on  the  ground ' ;  and  Chrysostom  saith '  he  which  is  not  fit 
to  receive  is  not  fit  to  pray,'  which  were  not  true  if  prayer 
were  not  of  as  much  importance  as  the  Communion. 

OF  THE  DIVIDING  OF  THE  SEEVICE  OF  THE  COMMUNION 
IN  Two  PAETS. 

Dionysius  the  Areopagite  saith  that  '  after  the  reading 
of  the  Old  and  New  Testament,  the  learners  of  the  faith 
before  they  were  baptized,  madmen  and  they  which  were 
joined  to  penance  for  their  faults,  were  shut  out  of  the 
church,  and  they  only  did  remain  which  did  receive.' 
Chrysostom  witnesseth  also  that  these  three  sorts  were 
shut  out  from  the  Communion.  Therefore  Durand  writeth 
that  the  Mass  of  the  learners  is  from  the  Introit  until 
the  Offertory,  which  is  called  Mass,  or  sending  out,  in 
that  it  sendeth  out,  because  when  the  priest  beginneth  to 
consecrate  the  Sacrament,  the  learners  be  sent  out  of  the 
church.  The  Mass  or  sending  out  of  the  faithful  is  from 
the  Offertory  till  after  Communion,  and  is  named  Missa, 
a  sending  out,  because  when  it  is  ended,  then  each  faithful 
is  sent  forth  to  his  proper  business. 

OF  THE  CEEED. 

The  Creed  is  ordained  to  be  said  only  of  the  Communi- 
cants, because  Dionysius  and  Chrysostom  and  Basil  in 
their  liturgies  say  that  the  learners  were  shut  out  ere  the 
Creed  was  said.  Because  it  is  the  prayer  of  the  faithful 
only  which  were  but  the  Communicants,  for  that  they 
which  did  not  receive  were  taken  for  that  time  as  not 


GUEST'S  LETTEE  251 

faithful.     Therefore  Chrysostom  saith  that  'they  which 
do  not  receive  be  as  men  doing  penance  for  their  sin.' 

OF  PEAYING  FOE  THE  DEAD  IN  THE  COMMUNION. 

The  praying  for  the  dead  is  not  now  used  in  the  Com- 
munion because  it  doth  seem  to  make  for  the  Sacrifice  of 
the  dead,  and  also  because  (as  it  was  used  in  the  first  book) 
it  maketh  some  of  the  faithful  to  be  in  Heaven  and  to  need 
no  mercy,  and  some  of  them  to  be  in  another  place  and  to 
lack  help  and  mercy,  as  though  they  were  not  all  alike 
redeemed  and  brought  to  Heaven  by  CHEIST'S  merits  ;  but 
some  deserved  it  (as  it  is  said  of  Martyrs) ;  and  some  for 
lack  of  perfectness  were  in  purgatory  (as  it  is  spoken  of  the 
mean  sort).  But  thus  to  pray  for  the  dead  in  the  Com- 
munion was  not  used  in  CHEIST  and  His  Apostles'  time, 
nor  in  Justin's  time,  who,  speaking  of  the  manner  of  using 
the  Communion  in  his  time,  reporteth  not  this.  So  that 
I  may  here  well  say  with  Tertullian,  '  that  is  true  which 
is  first,  that  is  false  which  is  after ;  that  is  true  which  is 
first,  that  is  first  which  is  from  the  beginning,  that  is  from 
the  beginning  which  is  from  the  Apostles  ' 

OF  THE  PEAYEE  IN  THE  FIBST  BOOK  FOE  CONSECEATION. 
0  MEECIFUL  FATHEE,  ETC. 

This  prayer  is  to  be  disliked  for  two  causes — the  first, 
because  it  is  taken  to  be  so  needful  for  the  Consecration, 
that  the  Consecration  is  not  thought  to  be  without  it. 
Which  is  not  true,  for  petition  is  no  part  of  Consecration, 
because  CHEIST,  in  ordaining  the  Sacrament,  made  no 
petition  but  a  thanksgiving.  It  is  written,  '  when  He 
had  given  thanks  '  and  not  '  when  He  had  asked,'  which 
CHEIST  would  have  spoken,  and  the  Evangelists  have 
written,  if  it  had  been  needful,  as  it  is  mistaken.  And 
though  Mark  saith  that  CHEIST  blessed  when  He  took 


252  GUEST'S  LETTEE 

bread,  yet  hie  meaneth  by  '  blessed,'  '  gave  thanks,'  or 
else  he  would  have  said  also  '  He  gave  thanks,'  as  he  said 
He  blessed  if  he  had  meant  thereby  divine  things.  And 
speaking  of  the  Cup,  he  would  have  said  CHEIST  blessed 
when  He  took  the  Cup,  and  as  he  saith  '  He  gave  thanks,' 
if  *  gave  thanks  '  and  '  blessed '  were  not  all  one ;  or  else 
CHEIST  should  be  thought  to  have  consecrated  the  bread 
and  not  the  wine,  because  in  consecrating  the  bread  He 
said  '  blessed,'  and  in  consecrating  the  wine  He  left  it 
out ;  yea,  by  Matthew,  Luke,  and  Paul  He  should  neither 
have  consecrated  the  one  nor  the  other,  for  that  they  report 
not  that  He  blessed.  Gregory  writeth  to  the  Bishop  of 
Syracuse  that  the  Apostles  used  only  the  Lord's  Prayer 
at  the  Communion,  and  none  other,  and  seemeth  to  be 
displeased  that  it  is  not  there  still  so  used,  but  instead 
thereof  the  canon  which  Scholasticus  made.  Therefore, 
in  that  he  would  the  Lord's  Prayer  to  be  used  at  the 
making  of  the  Communion,  which  maketh  nothing  for  the 
Consecrating  thereof,  and  not  Scholasticus's  prayer,  which 
prayeth  for  the  Consecration  of  the  same  ;  it  must  needs 
be  that  he  thought  the  Communion  not  to  be  made  by 
Invocation.  Chrysostom  saith  that  this  Sacrament  is 
made  by  the  words  that  CHEIST  once  spoke,  as  everything 
is  generated  by  the  words  of  GOD  that  He  once  spake, 
'  Increase  and  fill  the  earth.'  Bessarion  saith  that  the 
Consecration  standeth  on  CHRIST'S  ordinance  and  His 
words,  and  not  of  the  prayer  of  the  priest ;  and  that  for 
three  causes.  The  first,  because  the  priest  may  pray  with- 
out faith,  without  which  his  prayer  is  not  heard.  The 
second,  because  the  prayer  is  not  all  one  in  all  countries. 
The  third,  because  Baptism  is  without  prayer.  Justin,  in 
showing  how  the  Communion  was  celebrated  in  his  time, 
maketh  no  mention  of  invocation,  no  more  doth  Irenaeus. 
The  second  cause  why  the  foresaid  prayer  is  to  be 
refused  is,  for  that  it  prayeth  that  the  bread  and  wine 
maybe  CHEiST'sBoDY  and  BLOOD  ;  which  maketh  for  the 


GUEST'S  LETTER  253 

popish  transubstantiation,  which  is  a  doctrine  that  hath 
caused  much  idolatry.  And  though  the  Doctors  so  speak, 
yet  we  must  speak  otherwise,  because  we  take  them  other- 
wise than  they  meant  or  would  be  taken.  For  when 
their  meaning  is  corrupted,  then  their  words  must  be 
expounded.  In  one  place,  it  is  said,  '  This  is  the  new 
testament  in  my  BLOOD,'  and  in  another  place,  '  This 
is  my  BLOOD  of  the  new  testament.'  Here  CHRIST'S 
words  be  diversely  reported  that  we  should  expound  them 
when  they  be  mistaken.  And  both  He  and  His  Apostles 
allege,  not  after  the  letter,  but  after  the  meaning. 

OF  RECEIVING   THE    SACRAMENT   IN   OUR   HANDS. 

CHRIST  gave  the  Sacrament  into  the  hands  of  His 
Apostles.  'Divide  it,'  He  saith,  'among  yourselves.'  It 
is  decreed  that  the  priest  should  be  excommunicated 
which  did  suffer  any  man  to  take  it  with  anything  saving 
with  his  hands  (as  then  they  made  instruments  to  receive 
it  withal).  Ambrose  thus  speaketh  to  Theodosius  the 
Emperor,  'How  wilt  thou  with  such  hands  receive  the 
BODY  of  CHRIST?'  'If  we  be  ashamed,'  saith  Austin, 
'and  afraid  to  touch  the  Sacrament  with  foul  hands, 
much  more  we  ought  to  fear  to  take  it  with  an  unclean 
soul.' 

OP  RECEIVING  STANDING  OR  KNEELING. 

Justin  saith  we  should  rather  stand  than  kneel  when 
we  pray  on  Sunday,  because  it  is  a  sign  of  resurrection, 
and  writeth  that  Irenaeus  saith  it  is  a  custom  which  came 
from  the  Apostles.  And  Austin  thus  writeth,  'We  pray 
standing,  which  is  a  sign  of  resurrection,  therefore  on 
every  Sunday  it  is  observed  at  the  Altar.'  It  is  in  plain 
words  in  the  last  chapter  of  the  last  book  (which  Gaguens, 
a  Frenchman,  hath  put  to  Tertullian's  works  as  his),  that 
CHRIST'S  BODY  is  received  standing.  Though  this  is  the 


254  CECIL  AND  GUEST'S  LETTER 

old  use  of  the  Church  to  communicate  standing,  yet  be- 
cause it  is  taken  of  some  by  itself  to  be  sin  to  receive 
kneeling,  whereas  of  itself  it  is  lawful,  it  is  left  indifferent 
to  every  man's  choice  to  follow  the  one  way  or  the  other ; 
to  teach  man  that  it  is  lawful  to  receive  either  standing 
or  kneeling. 

Thus  (as  I  think)  I  have  showed  good  cause  why  the 
service  is  set  forth  in  such  sort  as  it  is.  GOD  for  His 
mercy  in  CHRIST  cause  the  Parliament  with  one  voice  to 
enact  it,  and  the  realm  with  true  heart  to  use  it. 

Strype  suggests  that  the  letter  from  Guest  to 
Cecil  was  in  answer  to  '  hints  and  questions  of  the 
Secretary's    pursuant    to   the   settlement   of    the 
Liturgy.'     Undoubtedly  Strype  is  right  in  saying 
that  in  this  affair  [of  the  revision  of  the  Prayer- 
Book  in   1559]    Sir  William   Cecil,   the   Queen's 
Secretary,  was  a  great  dealer  and  director,  and  was 
very  earnest  about  the  Book.     Sandys  bears  similar 
testimony  immediately   after  the  Book  had  been 
sanctioned  by  Parliament.     But  it  is  unnecessary 
to  labour  the  point,  for  Dr.  Gee  admits  that  '  Cecil 
was  at  this  time  the   chief  mover  in   all   action 
religious   and  political.     He  was  the  right-hand 
man  of  Elizabeth,  as  Dean  Boxall  had  been  Mary's. 
The  Spanish  Ambassador  says  of  Cecil  in  January 
[1559]  :  "  Her  present  controller  [Parry]  and  Secre- 
tary Cecil  govern  the  kingdom,  and  they  tell  me 
the  Earl  of  Bedford  has   a   good  deal   to  say."  ' 
Strype' s   suggestion  is   therefore  more  than  pro- 
bable. 

But  Dr.   Gee  thinks  that  Guest's  letter  has 


DE.  GEE'S  AKGUMENT  EXAMINED         255 

nothing  to  do  with  the  Prayer-Book  revision  of 
1559,  and  refers  it  to  the  revision  which  produced 
the  Book  of  1552.  This  view  seems  to  me  quite 
impossible  both  on  historical  grounds  and  from 
internal  evidence.  There  is  not  a  particle  of 
evidence  to  connect  Guest  with  the  Book  of  1552. 
Dr.  Gee  admits  that  Guest,  in  this  letter,  like  the 
writer  of  the  'Distresses  of  the  Commonwealth,' 
'  appears  to  have  had  certain  points  submitted  to 
him  for  his  decision,'  and  he  says  that  Guest 
1  speaks  in  the  Quorum  pars  magna  fui  strain.' 
That  is  true,  and  is  surely  a  conclusive  proof  that 
Guest  had  nothing  to  do  with  the  revision  of  1552. 
The  dominant  names  connected  with  that  revision 
are,  on  the  one  side,  Calvin,  Bucer,  Peter  Martyr, 
Knox,  and  their  disciples  among  the  returned 
exiles ;  and  Cranmer  on  the  other.  Guest's  name 
never  appears  directly  or  indirectly,  still  less  as  the 
leading  actor. 

Let  us  now  examine  briefly  Dr.  Gee's  salient 
arguments  to  prove  that  Guest's  letter  refers  to  the 
revision  of  1552,  not  to  that  of  1559. 

1.  '  The  letter  is  without  date.'  That  really  is 
no  argument,  and  is  in  any  case  as  cogent  against 
1552  as  against  1559.  Besides,  the  fact  that  Cecil 
sent  the  letter  to  Parker  in  1566  in  answer  to 
Parker's  request  ( for  a  certain  writing,  which  he 
wanted  '  for  the  vestiarian  controversy,  inferentially 
supplies  the  date  of  1566,  when  Parker  was  in  the 
heat  of  the  controversy  on  the  vestments.  The 


256          DE.  GEE'S  AEGUMENT  EXAMINED 

letter  is  therefore  relevant  to  Elizabeth's  Prayer- 
Book,  but  not  to  the  Book  of  1552,  in  the  revision 
of  which  neither  Parker  nor  Cecil  took  part. 
Guest,  moreover,  was  one  of  the  Ecclesiastical 
Commissioners  who  drew  up  and  signed  the  Ad- 
vertisements in  1564.  He  wrote  at  the  same  time 
a  learned  answer,  composed  in  scholastic  form,  to 
the  argument  of  the  Puritans  against  sacerdotal 
vestments.  Granted,  he  says,  that  a  sacerdotal 
vestment  was  formerly  used  for  superstitious 
purposes, — 

Yet  it  is  not  now  appointed  nor  used  for  any  such 
superstitious  end.  As  I  would  to  God  it  were  so  taught 
by  public  doctrine  in  print,  and  then  all  this  strife  would 
be  at  at  end.  But  the  said  apparel  is  worn  and  appointed 
to  put  difference  betwixt  a  priest  and  another  man ;  and 
to  show  who  is  a  priest,  that  he  may  be  esteemed  as  he 
is,  even  the  Minister  of  God's  Holy  Word  and  Sacraments. 
Therefore  priests'  apparel  hath  not  the  appearance  of 
evil,  but  of  good.1 

The  fact  is,  Guest  believed  in  a  Real  Objective 
Presence  in  the  Eucharist,  as  his  alteration  of  the 
28th  Article  shows,  and  of  this  the  doctrine  of 
priesthood  is  the  correlative.  For  the  sake  of 
peace  he  was  apparently  willing,  as  his  letter  to 
Cecil  shows,  to  make  large  concessions  to  the 
Puritans  in  the  beginning  of  Elizabeth's  reign. 
But  their  intractable  temper  and  anarchical  doc- 
trines appear  to  have  made  him  acquiesce  in  the 

1  Strype's  Life  of  Parker,  iii.  105. 


DE.  GEE'S  AEGUMENT  EXAMINED          257 

Queen's   policy   as   embodied  in  the    Ornaments 
Kubric.1 

2.  The  difference  between  the  handwriting  of 
Guest's  letter  to  Cecil  (ex  hypothesi  in  1559)  and 
a  letter  of  his  written  in  1565  is  much  greater,  Dr. 
Gee  thinks,  than  an  interval  of  five  or  six  years 
would  imply,  but  could  be  accounted  for  by  the 
interval  between  1552  and  1565.     '  The  letter  of 
1565  is  much  less  neatly  written  than  that  under 
consideration.'     Handwriting  is  a  very  fallacious 
test  when  tried  by  the  difference  between  neat  and 
slovenly  writing.     Pen,  ink,  paper,  weariness  may 
easily  explain  the  difference.     Besides,  Guest  had 
been  five  years  bishop  when  he  wrote  the  letter  of 
1565,  and  five  years'  constant  official  correspond- 
ence would  easily  account  for  the  deterioration  of 
handwriting  on  which  Dr.  Gee  relies. 

3.  'But  the  most  serious   objection,'  Dr.  Gee 
says,  '  to  Guest's  letter  having  anything  to  do  with 
the  Prayer-Book  revision  in  1559  is  that  it  is  hard 
to  reconcile  the  character  of  the  points  debated  by 
Guest  in  his  letter  with  the  probable  course  of  any 
discussion  that  arose  in  the  year  1559.  .  .  .  We 
know  the  character  and  antecedents  of  all  the  men 
in  the  list,  and  not  one  of  them  is  likely  to  have 
desired  to  go  behind  the  Book  of  1552,  or  to  bring 
back  the  Book  of  1549.'     It  is  no  answer  to  this 
objection  on  the  part  of  Dr.  Gee  to  say  that  he  has 

1  There  is  an  excellent  little  book  on  Bishop  Guest  and  the  28th 
Article  by  the  Eev.  G.  F.  Hodges,  published  by  Rivington,  Percival 
&Co. 


258          DR.  GEE'S  ARGUMENT  EXAMINED 

here  forgotten  the  most  dominant  influence  in  the 
revision  of  1559,  namely,  the  Queen's.  For  Dr. 
Gee  believes,  as  we  have  seen,  that  the  Queen  was 
in  full  sympathy  with  the  extreme  Puritans  who 
even  objected  to  the  use  of  the  surplice.  I  need 
not  argue  that  point,  however,  for  I  submit  that 
I  have  proved  to  demonstration  that  Elizabeth 
thought  that  the  Eeformers  of  Edward  VI.  had 
gone  too  far  and  that  she  desired  to  go  back  to  the 
state  of  things  left  by  her  father.  That  being  so, 
I  have  no  doubt  that  Strype  is  right  in  suggesting 
that  Guest's  letter  is  an  answer  to  points  raised  by 
Cecil,  who  probably  acted  on  the  initiative  of  the 
Queen.  Cecil's  points  would  of  course  raise  dis- 
cussions. We  know  from  Sandys'  letter  in  April, 
1559,  that  objections  were  raised  to  the  alterations 
made  by  the  revisers ;  that  the  Queen  was  pre- 
judiced against  some  of  the  alterations  ;  that  Cecil 
took  an  '  earnest '  part  in  the  discussions  or  nego- 
tiations ;  and  that  the  revisers '  ministered  reasons 
to  maintain '  their  position.1  All  this  fits  admir- 
ably into  the  revision  of  1559 ;  not  at  all  into  the 
revision  of  1552.  The  very  object  of  the  '  Device,' 
to  which  Dr.  Gee  here  appeals,  was  to  find  a  modus 
vivendi  for  the  great  body  of  the  clergy  and  laity, 
who  were  attached  to  the  traditional  mode  of  public 
worship,  instead  of  alienating  them  as  the  domina- 
tion of  the  Puritan  party  had  done  in  the  latter 
part  of  Edward's  reign.  The  Zurich  Letters  show 

1  Correspondence  of  Archbishop  Parker,  p.  66. 


DK.  GEE'S  ARGUMENT  EXAMINED          259 

plainly  that  the  Puritans  in  the  mass  were  exas- 
perated by  the  result  of  the  revision  of  1559,  and 
the  Puritans  on  the  Eevision  Committee  complained 
bitterly  that  they  were  checkmated  and  defeated 
by  the  Ornaments  Eubric  and  the  corresponding 
clause  of  the  Act  of  Uniformity,  which  were  passed 
over  their  heads. 

4.  Guest's  letter  says  :  c  It  is  left  indifferent  to 
every  man's  choice  to  follow  the  one  way  or  the 
other,  to  teach  men  that  it  is  lawful  to  receive 
either  standing  or  kneeling.'  *  This,'  says  Dr.  Gee, 
'  is  clearly  inapplicable  to  the  Book  of  1559.'  But 
it  is  equally  inapplicable  to  the  Book  of  1552,  to 
which  Dr.  Gee  refers  it.  Kneeling  is  enjoined  in 
both  Books.  '  There  is  no  mention,'  he  says,  '  in 
any  reference  of  the  year  1559  to  any  diversity  of 
practice  in  regard  to  kneeling.'  But  the  Ke vision 
Committee  sat  in  the  early  part  of  Elizabeth's  reign, 
when  '  diversity  of  practice  in  regard  to  kneeling  ' 
and  every  other  act  of  public  worship  was  sternly 
forbidden  by  proclamation ;  and  some  Puritans 
were  summarily  imprisoned  for  disobeying  the 
order.1  But  the  correspondence  of  the  Puritan 
leaders  in  Elizabeth's  reign  proves  that  they  were 
as  relentless  as  ever  against  the  practice  of  receiv- 
ing the  Sacrament  kneeling. 

These  are  Dr.  Gee's  principal  reasons  for 
believing  that  Guest's  letter  refers  to  the  Book 
of  1552,  not  to  that  of  1559.  They  appear  to  me 

1  Strype,  Ann.  i.  i.  59. 

8  2 


260     INTERNAL  EVIDENCE  AGAINST  DE.  GEE 

quite  inadequate  to  sustain  his  conclusion.  Nor  is 
this  all.  Dr.  Gee  has  strangely  overlooked  the 
internal  evidence  which  seems  to  me  to  prove 
beyond  a  doubt  that  Guest's  letter  refers  to  the 
Book  of  1559.  For  example  : — 

Ceremonies  once  taken  away,  as  evil,  should  not  be 
taken  again,  though  they  be  not  evil  of  themselves,  but 
might  well  be  used. 

Manifestly  this  refers  to  ceremonies  sanctioned 
by  the  Book  of  1549  and  taken  away  by  the  Book 
of  1552.  In  other  words,  the  criticism  is  later  than 
the  Book  of  1552  and  must  refer  to  the  revision 
of  1559. 

Again : — 

That  praying  for  the  dead  is  not  now  used  in  the 
Communion  because  it  doth  make  for  the  sacrifice  of  the 
dead. 

But  praying  for  the  dead  was  used  during  the 
revision  of  1552.  Therefore  the  passage  cannot 
refer  to  that  revision.  The  next  sentence  confirms 
this : — 

And  also  because  (as  it  was  used  in  the  first  Book)  it 
makes  some  of  the  faithful  to  be  in  heaven,  and  to  need 
no  mercy ;  and  some  of  them  to  be  in  another  place,  and 
to  lack  help  and  mercy. 

A  c  first  Book '  implies  the  existence  of  a  second. 
But  there  was  no  second  Book  in  existence  during 
the  revision  of  1552.    The  same  observation  applies 
to  the  next  section : — 
OF  THE  PRAYER  IN  THE  FIRST  BOOK  FOR  CONSECRATION. 


The  criticism  of  Guest  appears  to  me  to  show 
distinctly  that  it  was  a  question  between  restoring 
the  first  Book  of  Edward  or  the  second :  Cecil, 
I  have  no  doubt  acting  on  the  Queen's  instructions, 
recommending  the  former  ;  the  revisers  preferring 
the  latter  with  some  additional  alterations  to  please 
the  returned  exiles. 

The  paragraph  defending  the  reception  of  the 
Sacrament  '  in  our  hands,'  instead  of  our  mouths 
(as  the  Book  of  1549  ordered)  is  also  an  indirect 
proof  that  Guest's  letter  refers  to  the  year  1559. 
There  was  in  the  beginning  of  Elizabeth's  reign  an 
influential  party  among  the  English  reformers  who 
advocated  the  adoption  of  the  Augsburg  Confession, 
1  whereby  a  real  and  substantial  presence  might 
be  acknowledged  in  the  Eucharist ;  crucifixes  and 
images  might  be  retained  in  the  churches,  the 
wafer  put  into  the  receiver's  mouth,  and  such  like.' l 
To  all  this  the  Puritanical  members  of  the  revision 
of  1559  were  strongly  opposed.  Guest  is  evidently 
answering  some  one — no  doubt  Cecil — who  sug- 
gested the  restoration  of  the  usage  sanctioned  by 
the  Book  of  1549. 

But  perhaps  the  most  decisive  proof  of  all  that 
Guest's  letter  has  to  do  with  the  revision  of  1559 
is  the  long  argumentative  paragraph  '  Of  the  Prayer 
in  the  First  Book  for  Consecration.'  Sandys  tells 
us,  in  his  letter  to  Parker,  just  after  the  revision  of 
1559,  on  which  he  sat,  that  Dean  Boxall  objected 

1  Strype,  Ann.  i.  i.  76. 


262     INTEENAL  EVIDENCE  OF  GUEST'S  LETTER 

to  the  Book  of  1552,  as  revised  by  Sandys  and  his 
colleagues,  that  there  was  no  thanksgiving  in  the 
Prayer  of  Consecration  ;  '  for,  saith  he,  "  Dominus 
accipit  panem,  gratias  agit  "  ;  but  in  the  time  of 
consecration  we  give  no  thanks.  This  he  put  into 
the  treasurer's  [Cecil's]  hand,  and  into  Countie  de 
Feror's  [Count  de  Feria's],  and  he  laboured  to 
alienate  the  Queen's  Majesty  from  confirming  of 
the  Act,  but  I  think  they  cannot  prevail.  Mr. 
Secretary  is  earnest  with  the  Book,  and  we  have 
ministered  reasons  to  maintain  that  part.' l 

The  objector  whom  Guest  is  answering,  and 
whom  I  assume  to  be  Cecil,  had  evidently  suggested 
the  restoration  of  the  eTj-i/cX^o-is,  which  the  revisers 
of  the  second  Book  had  omitted.  Guest  answers 
that  the  essence  of  the  consecration  is  in  the  words 
of  institution ;  '  because  Christ,  in  ordaining  the 
Sacrament,  made  no  petition,  but  thanksgiving.  It 
is  written,  "  When  He  had  given  thanks,"  and  not 
"  When  He  had  asked."  '  To  this  defence  Dr. 
Boxall  seems  to  have  replied :  *  But  you  have 
omitted  from  the  Prayer  of  Consecration  in  the 
first  Prayer-Book  not  only  the  invocation,  but  also 
the  thanksgiving  which  follows  the  words  of  in- 
stitution.' Hence,  as  it  seems  to  me,  Guest's 
elaborate  argument  to  show  that  Christ's  giving  of 
thanks  is  in  itself  a  blessing,  and  His  blessing  a 
thanksgiving.  The  explanation  appears  to  have 
satisfied  Cecil  and  the  Queen,  for  the  omission  in 

1  Correspondence  of  Archbishop  Parker,  p.  65. 


THE  EEVISION  OP  1559  263 

the  Book  of  1552  was  not  repaired.  BoxalTs  cavil 
and  Guest's  explanation  thus  dovetail  into  each 
other ;  but  there  is  no  incident  in  the  revision  of 
1552  which  explains  this  part  of  G-uest's  letter. 

I  venture  to  think  that  I  have  now  disposed  of 
Dr.  Gee's  book  in  so  far  as  it  trenches  on  my  line 
of  argument.  But  I  agree  with  him  in  thinking 
that  there  is  an  unexplained  lacuna  in  the  story  of 
the  revision  of  1559.  The  revision  was  heralded 
with  much  pomp.  A  very  learned  and  distin- 
guished public  man  was  appointed  as  its  chairman 
and  convener.  The  revisers  were  to  meet  at  his 
house,  and  food,  fuel,  and  wine  were  provided  for 
them.  And  the  result  of  all  this  care  and  prepara- 
tion was  the  Prayer-Book  of  1552,  with  two  or 
three  insignificant  alterations  besides  the  Orna- 
ments Eubric  !  '  Besides  the  Ornaments  Kubric  ! ' 
Ah !  but  to  me  that  explains  all.  Dr.  Gee 
has  given  his  explanation,  and  I  have  examined 
it.  Mine  is  a  much  simpler  explanation.  I  be- 
lieve that  the  revisers  produced  such  a  book  as 
Guest's  letter  indicates — a  book  more  obnoxious  to 
the  Queen  than  even  the  Book  of  1552  ;  that  she 
refused  to  sanction  it,  but  agreed  to  accept  the 
Book  of  1552  plus  the  last  clause  of  the  Act  of 
Uniformity,  which  restored,  as  Sandys  says,  the 
ceremonial  of  Edward  VI. 's  first  and  second  year, 
and  gave  the  Queen  statutory  power,  in  conjunc- 
tion with  the  Metropolitan  or  Ecclesiastical  Com- 
missioners, to  make  such  additions  in  Divine 


264  AUTHOR'S  EXPLANATION  OF 

Service  as  seemed  to  be  desirable.  This  statutory 
power  she  began  immediately  to  exercise  by  insist- 
ing on  incorporating  the  Ornaments  clause  of  the 
Act  of  Uniformity  in  a  special  Rubric;  by  some 
changes  in  the  Lectionary ;  by  the  publication  of 
the  Latin  Prayer-Book,  together  with  additional 
services  (which  approximated  to,  and  in  part  went 
even  beyond,  the  first  Prayer-Book) ;  by  the  In- 
junction ordering  wafer  bread,  &c.  Parker  says 
distinctly  that  Elizabeth  herself  assured  him  that 
'  but  for  this  [statutory  power]  her  Highness  would 
not  have  agreed  to  divers  orders  in  the  Book.' 1 
And  the  Archbishop  adds  emphatically  that  the 
Injunction  ordering  wafer  bread  was  covered  by 
the  Act  of  Uniformity.  That  is  true,  but  only 
indirectly.  The  Injunctions  did  not  comply  with 
the  provisions  of  the  Act,  which  required  that  the 
Queen's  statutory  power  should  be  issued  on  the 
advice  of  the  Metropolitan  or  Ecclesiastical  Com- 
missioners ;  whereas  the  Injunctions  were  issued 
'by  the  advice  of  our  Most  Honourable  Council.' 
But  the  Injunction  had  the  indirect  authority  of 
the  Act,  because  it  only  enjoined  what  was  in  use 
by  statutory  authority  in  Edward's  second  year. 
Such  Injunctions,  however,  as  did  not  come  under 
the  protection  of  the  Ornaments  Eubric  possessed 
only  whatever  authority  the  Queen  might  claim 
by  virtue  of  her  supremacy  in  causes  ecclesiastical 
as  well  as  civil.  The  Puritans  were  quick  to  detect 

1  Parker's  Correspondence,  p.  375. 


THE  EEVISION  OF  1559  265 

this  distinction  between  the  Injunction  on  wafer 
bread  and  such  Injunctions  as  were  not  covered  by 
the  Ornaments  Kubric,  and  they  made  the  most  of 
it.  Parker,  too,  recognised  the  difference.  For 
while  declaring,  as  we  have  seen,  that  the  Injunc- 
tion on  wafer  bread  was  sanctioned  by  the  Act  of 
Uniformity,  he  tells  Cecil  (who  revised,  if  he  did 
not  draw  up,  the  Injunctions)  that  he  had  unduly 
stretched  the  Queen's  prerogative  in  that  docu- 
ment :  '  Her  princely  prerogatives  in  temporal 
matters  be  called  into  question  of  base  subjects, 
and  it  is  known  that  her  Highness  hath  taken 
order  to  cease  in  some  of  them.  Whatsoever  the 
ecclesiastical  prerogative  is,  I  fear  it  is  not  so  great 
as  your  pen  has  given  it  to  her  in  the  Injunction.'1 
The  leading  Puritans  complained  bitterly  that 
the  restoration  of  the  Book  of  1552  was  nullified 
by  the  Act  of  Uniformity  and  Ornaments  Eubric. 

1  Parker's  Correspondence,  p.  478 ;  cf.  Strype,  Ann.  i.  pt.  i.  236. 
This  distinction  between  the  Injunctions  covered  by  the  Ornaments 
clause  of  the  Act  of  Uniformity  and  other  Injunctions  disposes  of  Dr. 
Gee's  argument  (Elizabethan  Prayer-BooJc,  pp.  140-1)  that  the  In- 
junctions of  1559  modified  the  Ornaments  Rubric.  The  Act  gave  the 
Queen  authority  on  certain  conditions  to  make  additions  to  the  ordi- 
nary ceremonial,  not  to  '  modify '  any  part  of  the  statutory  standard,  and 
the  Injunctions,  perse,  had  no  statutory  force,  as  they  failed  to  comply 
with  the  terms  of  the  Act.  In  any  collision  with  the  Ornaments  Rubric 
the  Injunctions,  not  the  Rubric,  would  have  to  give  way.  But  I  do  not 
admit  that  there  was  a  collision  between  the  Injunctions  and  the 
Ornaments  Rubric.  According  to  a  recognised  principle  of  law,  they 
might  both  '  stand  together.'  The  ornaments  ordered  to  be  destroyed 
were  only  such  as  were  '  monuments  of  feigned  miracles,  pilgrimages, 
idolatry,  and  superstition ' ;  not  ornaments  of  the  same  kind  which 
had  not  been  so  abused.  There  were  similar  Injunctions  in  Henry 
VIII.'s  reign.  It  is  true  that  in  both  cases  there  was  sometimes  an 


266  THE  EEVISION  OF  1559 

They  complained  even  more  bitterly  that  their 
ecclesiastical  patrons,  after  encouraging  them  in 
their  lawlessness,  had  for  the  sake  of  promotion 
left  them  in  the  lurch,  and  even  turned  against 
them.  And  it  is  certainly  a  remarkable  fact  that 
the  leading  divines  on  the  Eevision  Committee  in 
1559  were  speedily  rewarded  with  high  promotion, 
as  if  to  console  them  for  some  great  disappoint- 
ment :  possibly  the  suppression  of  their  recom- 
mendations for  a  new  Prayer-Book.  The  Act  of 
Uniformity,  together  with  the  Ornaments  Eubric, 
gave  the  Queen  practically  what  she  wanted,  while 
restoring  the  second  Prayer-Book  of  Edward  VI. 
with  hardly  any  alteration. 

indiscriminate  destruction  and  spoliation  of  church  ornaments,  in- 
cluding vestments  (for  altars  as  well  as  clergy),  candlesticks,  crosses, 
patens,  chalices,  which  were  undoubtedly  legal.  The  passages  quoted 
by  Dr.  Gee  on  pp.  140-1  show  that  what  the  Injunctions  condemned 
were  particular  ornaments,  not  the  whole  class.  Thus  shrines  and 
pictures  in  private  houses,  if  used  for  superstitious  purposes,  were 
ordered  to  be  destroyed.  It  might  as  well  be  inferred  that  in  ordering 
the  destruction  of  the  Mahdi's  shrine  at  Khartoum  Lord  Kitchener 
intended  the  destruction  of  all  Mohammedan  tombs. 


APPENDICES 


APPENDIX  A 


TWENTY-NINTH   DAY. 

Thursday,  24£7t  November,  1904. 


PEESENT. 

The  Eight  Hon.  Sir  MICHAEL  EDWAKD  HICKS-BEACH,  Bart., 

M.P.  (in  the  Chair). 

The  Most  Eev.  The  LORD  ARCHBISHOP  OF  CANTERBURY. 
The  Eight  Eev.  The  LORD  BISHOP  OP  OXFORD. 
The  Eight  Hon.  Sir  FRANCIS  HENRY  JEUNE,  G.C.B. 
The  Eight  Hon.  Sir  JOHN  HENRY  KENNAWAY,  Bart.,  C.B 

M.P. 

The  Eight  Hon.  JOHN  GILBERT  TALBOT,  M.P. 
Sir  SAMUEL  HOARE,  Bart.,  M.P. 
Sir  EDWARD  GEORGE  CLARKE,  E.G. 
Sir  LEWIS  TONNA  DIBDIN,  D.C.L. 
The  Eev.  EDGAR  CHARLES  SUMNER  GIBSON,  D.D. 
The  Eev.  THOMAS  WORTLEY  DRURY,  B.D. 
GEORGE  WALTER  PROTHERO,  Esq.,  Litt.D. 
GEORGE  HARWOOD,  Esq.,  M.P. 

E.  P.  CHARLEWOOD,  Esq.  (Secretary). 
J.  A.  LONGLEY,  Esq.  (Assist.  Secretary). 

The  Eev.  CANON  MALCOLM  MAcCoLL,  D.D.,  called ; 
and  Examined. 

8370.  (Chairman.)  You  are,  I  believe,  a  Canon  of  Eipon 
Cathedral?— Yes. 

8371.  And  you  have  devoted  much  attention  to   matters 
which  are  within  the  scope  of  our  Eef erence  ? — Yes. 

8372.  You  are  prepared,  I  think,  to  make  a  statement  on 
the  subject? — Yes,  if  the  Commissioners  wish  it. 

8373.  If  you  please. — In  forming  a  correct  opinion  on  this 


270  ELIZABETH'S  CONVERSATION 

question  I  think  a  few  general  observations  are  necessary  to 
understand  the  bearings  of  it.  It  seems  necessary  to  under- 
stand first  of  all  the  intentions  and  wishes  of  Queen  Elizabeth 
herself.  I  believe  it  is  admitted  by  all  historians  that  her  own 
wishes  were  in  favour  of  retaining  as  far  as  possible  the  old 
ceremonial  and  the  old  doctrines,  so  far  as  they  were  covered 
by  the  decisions  of  the  first  six  general  councils.  If  I  may  be 
allowed  I  should  like  to  read  two  or  three  authorities  on  that 
subject.  First  of  all  Macaulay  in  his  essays,  in  the  first  volume, 
pages  131-133,  says  Elizabeth  '  certainly  had  no  objection  to 
the  theology  of  Eome.  The  Eoyal  supremacy  was  to  supersede 
the  papal ;  but  the  Catholic  doctrines  and  rites  were  to  be  re- 
tained in  the  Church  of  England.'  '  Elizabeth  clearly  discerned 
the  advantages  which  were  to  be  derived  from  a  close  con- 
nection between  the  monarchy  and  the  priesthood.  At  the  time 
of  her  accession,  indeed,  she  evidently  meditated  a  partial 
reconciliation  with  Eome ;  and  throughout  her  whole  life  she 
leaned  strongly  to  some  of  the  most  obnoxious  parts  of  the 
Catholic  system ; '  that  is, '  obnoxious '  in  the  eyes  of  Macaulay. 
And  in  the  year  1569,  on  the  suppression  of  the  northern  re- 
bellion, Elizabeth  put  forth  a  Proclamation  in  which  she  said 
'  that  she  pretended  no  right  to  define  articles  of  faith,  or  to 
change  ancient  ceremonies  formerly  adopted  by  the  Catholic 
and  Apostolic  Church  .  .  .  . ;  but  that  she  conceived  it  her 
duty  to  take  care  that  all  estates  under  her  rule  should  live  in 
the  faith  and  obedience  of  the  Christian  religion ;  to  see  all 
laws  ordained  for  that  end  duly  observed  ;  and  to  provide  that 
the  Church  be  governed  by  archbishops,  bishops,  and  Ministers ; ' 
and  then  she  assured  her  people  that  she  meant  not '  to  molest 
them  for  religious  opinions,  provided  they  did  not  gainsay  the 
Scriptures  or  the  Creeds  Apostolic  or  Catholic,  nor  for  matter  of 
religious  ceremony  as  long  as  they  should  outwardly  conform 
to  the  laws  of  the  realm,  which  enforced  the  frequentation  of 
Divine  service  in  the  ordinary  churches.'  That  is  from  Lin- 
gard's  History,  volume  5,  page  295. 

8374.  (Rev.  Dr.  Gibson.}    Are  all  the  quotations  in  your 
book?— Yes. 

8375.  It  might  be  convenient  if  we  could  have  the  pages 
there— these  are  337  and  338  ?— Yes. 

8376.  Lingard  is  only  given  as  the  authority  for  the  Pro- 
clamation?— Lingard  is  only  given  as  the  authority  for  the 
Proclamation.     In   a    conversation    with    Don   Alvaro    de   la 
Cuadra,  Philip's  confidential  agent  to  get  at  the  Queen's  in- 
tentions and  real  opinions,  she  said  '  that  she  was  resolved  to 
restore  religion    precisely  as  it  had  been  left  by  her  father.' 
That  is  from  the  '  Documents  from  Simancas  relating  to  Eliza- 
beth,' page  55. 


WITH  COUNT  DE  FEEIA  271 

8377.  (Sir  Lewis  Dibdin.)  Is  that  quotation  accurate? — That 
is  accurate  from  the  translation  given   by  Spencer  Hall.     I 
took  it  from  his  book. 

8378.  (Mr.  Prothero.)    Does  that  quotation  appear  in  your 
book  ? — Yes,  it  is  at  page  577. 

8379.  (Sir  Lewis  Dibdin.)  Would  you  read  the  words  again  ? 
— '  That  she  was  resolved  to  restore  religion  precisely  as  it  had 
been  left  by  her  father.'    Then  it  goes  on  '  that  although  she 
would  not  assume  the  title  of    head    of  the  Church, '   and 
so  on. 

8380.  It  is  at  page  37  not  page  55.     This  is  what  it  says 
in  the  State  Papers :  '  She  said  after  a  time  that  she  could  not 
marry  your  Majesty  as  she  was  a  heretic.    I  was  much  sur- 
prised to  hear  her  use  such  words,  and  begged  her  to  tell  me 
the  cause  of  so  great  a  change  since  I  last  discussed  the  subject 
with  her,  but  she  did  not  enlighten  me.     These  heretics  and 
the  devil  that  prompts  them  are  so  careful  to  leave  no  stone 
unturned  to  compass  their  ends  that  no  doubt  they  have  per- 
suaded her  that  your  Majesty  wishes  to  marry  her  for  religious 
objects  alone,  and  so  she  kept  repeating  to  me  that  she  was 
heretical  and  consequently  could  not  marry  your  Majesty.    She 
was  so  disturbed  and  excited  and  so  resolved  to  restore  religion 
as  her  father  left  it,  that  at  last  I  said  that  I  did  not  consider 
she  was  heretical  and  could  not  believe  that  she  would  sanc- 
tion the  things  which  were  being  discussed  in  Parliament.'     I 
take  it  that  is  the  passage  ? — I  suppose  it  is ;  I  quote  from 
Spencer  Hall. 

8381.  Do  you  not  see  that  although  you  have  it  in  inverted 
commas  what  you  have  is  '  That  she  was  resolved  to  restore 
religion  precisely  as  it  had  been  left  by  her  father.'     There  is 
no  '  precisely '  at  all  ? — I  quote  from  Spencer  Hall ;  I  took  his 
accuracy  for  granted. 

8382.  I  beg  your  pardon,  I  am  quoting  from  the  actual  State 
Papers  by  Martin  Hume.     You  have  not  looked  it  up  in  the 
original  ? — No,  but  does  that  make  any  vital  difference  ? 

8383.  It  is  stronger  with  '  precisely  '  in  it  ? — Of  course  one 
would  have  to  look  at  the  Spanish  there. 

8384.  Unless  you  are  prepared  to  accept  Mr.  Hume's  trans- 
lation of  the  official  document  ? — It  is  a  question  between  him 
and  Spencer  Hall. 

8385.  (Mr.  Prothero.)    I  should  have  thought  Hall  took  it 
from  Martin  Hume  ? — No,  he  wrote  before  Martin  Hume,  some 
years  I  think. 

8386.  (Sir  Lewis  Dibdin.)    Are  you  not  also  in  error  in  sup- 

g)sing  that  that  came  from  de  la  Cuadra  at  all  ?    It  came  from 
e  Feria,  de  la  Cuadra's  predecessor  ? — They  were  both  at  the 
same  time  in  England  for  some  time. 


272  STATE  OF  EELIGION  AT 

8387.  This  is  a  despatch  from  Count  De  Feria  to  the  King  ? 
— And  does  he  quote  de  la  Cuadra  ? 

8388.  No. — There  I  simply  relied  upon  Spencer  Hall. 

8389.  De  Feria  was  the  man  who  rather  failed  with  Eliza- 
beth and  was  superseded  by  the  astute  person  you  have  referred 
to,  de  la  Cuadra  ? — Yes,  he  was. 

8390.  And  this   evidence  is   not   de    la   Cuadra's   but    De 
Feria's  ? — Yes,  he  was  superseded  after  some  time,  but  for  some 
time  they  were  both  in  London  together. 

8391.  The  despatch  is  from  De  Feria. — Spencer  Hall  gives 
it  from  de  la  Cuadra.1 

8392.  (Chairman.)  Will   you  proceed  to  your  next  point? 
— Then  my  next  point  would  be  that  the  majority  of  the  nation 
were  at  that  time  with  the  Queen  in  I  the   intention   thus  ex- 
pressed by  her.     De  Feria,  to  whom  Sir  Lewis  referred  just 
now,  says  that  the  Catholics  were  then  two-thirds  of  the  realm, 
and  a  contemporary  writer  quoted  by  Froude  says  that  they 
were  in  the  majority  in  every  county  in  England  except  Middle- 
sex and   Kent.     That  is   Froude,  Volume  7,  pages  20  to   68. 
And  in  his  very  learned  and  able  introduction  to  his  publication 
on  Henry  VIII.,  Brewer  says,  '  There  is  no  reason  to  suppose 
that  the  nation  as  a  whole  was  discontented  with  the  old  re- 
ligion.    Facts  point  to   the   opposite  conclusion.'     Then   the 
leaders  of  the  Puritans  themselves  at  the  time  represented  them- 
selves as  a  small  minority ;  one  of  them  spoke  of  their  number 
as  pusillus  grex,  a  tiny  flock.     It  is  also,  I  believe,  now  gene- 
rally admitted   by  historians   that  out  of  the  something  like 
10,000  clergy  in  England  on  the  accession  of  Queen  Elizabeth, 
only  200  clergy  refused  to  accept  the  Prayer  Book  ;  and  Coke 
in  his  Charge  at  Norwich  in  1607  declares  that  for  the  first  ten 
years  of  Elizabeth's  reign  the  Roman  Catholics   in   England 
attended  the  parish  churches — in  fact,  attended  until  the  Papal 
Bull  excommunicating  Elizabeth.     Then,  in  addition  to  that, 
it  was  clearly  Elizabeth's  political  interest  not  to  offend  the 
majority  of  the  clergy  and  church  people  of  the  time  who  were 
on  the  side,  more  or  less,  of  the  old  religion  with  certain  modi- 
fications and  certain  reformations,  and  a  general  abolition  of 
the  supremacy  of  the  Pope  and  the  corruptions  which  had  come 
in.     It  was  to  her  political  interest  to  conciliate  the  majority  of 
her  subjects  on  church  matters  in  addition  to  her  own  inclina- 
tions, because  she  was  in  a  very  serious  political  danger  ;  both 
France  and  Spain  and  the  Pope  were  conspiring  against  her 
to  upset  her  throne,  and  therefore  it  was  of  vital  importance 
to  her  to  enlist  as  many  of  her  subjects  as  she  could  on  her  side. 

1  Sir  Lewis  Dibdin's  point  is  of  no  importance.  De  la  Cuadra  was  sent 
by  De  Feria  to  Philip  with  the  despatch.  So  that  both  envoys  had  part 
in  it. 


THE  DEATH  OF  HENEY  VIII.  273 

Prom  her  point  of  view  it  would  have  been  an  act  of  great 
political  folly,  therefore,  to  have  rashly  upset  the  whole  externals 
of  public  religion,  and  it  seems  to  me  inconceivable  that  after 
the  publication  and  enforcement  of  her  Prayer  Book  the  whole 
outward  ceremonial  should  have  been  changed  in  one  day,  and 
not  a  word  left  to  us  on  the  part  of  those  who  were  aggrieved. 
All  the  complaints  for  the  first  few  years  of  Elizabeth's  reign 
came  from  the  Puritan  party ;  very  few,  if  any,  from  the  other 
side.  I  cannot  myself  believe  it  to  be  possible  that  when  the 
Prayer  Book  was  introduced  the  outward  ceremonial  was  en- 
tirely abolished — incense-  and  lights  at  the  celebration  of  the 
Holy  Communion  and  the  rest  of  it.  A  great  many  things  had 
been  abolished  under  Henry  VIII.,  and  in  the  early  years  of 
Edward  VI.,  and  a  great  part  of  the  service  was  in  English ; 
but  I  cannot  myself  believe  it  possible  that  so  complete  a 
change  as  is  popularly  supposed  could  have  taken  place  in 
one  day  without  a  sign  or  a  voice  protesting  against  it  on  the 
part  of  those  who  were  familiar  with  the  old  ceremonial  and 
liked  it. 

8393.  (Rev.  Dr.  Gibson.)  Did  I  rightly  understand  you  to 
say  that  at  the  death  of  Henry  VIII.  a  great  part  of  the  service 
was  in   English? — The   Order  of   the  Communion,  with   the 
exception  of  the  Consecration  Prayer  which  was  in  Latin,  is 
mostly  the  same  as  the  First  Prayer  Book  of  Edward  VI. 

8394.  You  allege  that  at  the  death  of  Henry  VIII.  a  great 
part  of  the  Order  of  the  Communion  was  in  English? — No, 
at  the  beginning  of  the  reign  of  Edward  VI. 

8395.  I  thought  you  spoke  of  the  death  of  Henry  VIII.  ? 
— Edward  VI.  immediately  succeeded  him,  and  the  Order  of 
the   Communion   came  out  soon  after  the  commencement  of 
his  reign. 

8396.  Soon  after  the  commencement  of  Edward  VI.'s  reign  ? 
—Yes. 

8397.  Henry  VIII.  died  on  January  27th,  1547,  did  he  not  ? 
—Yes. 

8398.  The  Order  of  the  Communion  was  not  published  till 
well  on  in  1548  ? — In  the  beginning  of  March. 

8399.  Then  surely  that  is  a  very  different  thing  from  saying 
that  when  Henry  VIII.  died  a  great  part  of  the  service  was 
in  English  ? — No,  not  a  great  part  of  the  Communion  Service, 
but  there  were  a  great  many  changes.     I  think  they  had  the 
Litany  in   English,   and  they  had  a   great  many  prayers   in 
English. 

8400.  A   great  many  prayers,  do  you  say  ? — The  Parker 
Society  published  a  number  of  them. 

8401.  They  had  the  Litany  in  English,  but  can  you  give 
me  a  single  other  thing  except  that  after  Matins  and  Evensong 


274     DIVINE  SEEVICE  PABTLY  IN  ENGLISH 

one  chapter  was  to  be  read  in  English  in  Henry  VIII.'s 
reign  ? — I  do  not  know  that  I  can  at  this  present  moment,  but 
I  think  I  could. 

8402.  I  think  not? — But  they  had  a  great  many  super- 
stitious customs  abolished. 

8403.  I  am  not  asking  generally.     I  understood  you  to  say 
that  at  the  death  of  Henry  VIII.  a  great  part  of  the  service 
was  in  English  ? — Not  of  the  Prayer  Book,  as  we  have  it  now. 

8404.  But  a  great  part  of  the  service  ? — Yes,  of  Matins  and 
Evensong,  and  a  great  many  of  the  occasional  services. 

8405.  What  was  in  English  ? — If  I  had  my  books  I  could 
provide  you  with  some  of  them. 

8406.  I  should  like  to   know  what  they  were.      My  im- 
pression is  that  at  the  death  of  Henry  VIII.  there  was  nothing 
in  English  except  the  Litany  and  one  chapter  of  the  Old  and 
New  Testament  to  be  read  after  Matins  and  Evensong.     In  the 
Order    of   the    Communion  there  was   not   a   single   word  in 
English  ? — The  Order  of  the  Communion  was  all  in  English. 

8407.  And  there  were  no  occasional  services  in  English  that 
I  am  aware  of? — Was  the  Epistle  not  read  in  English? 

8408.  No,  not  until  the  Injunctions  of  Edward  VI. — Perhaps, 
then,  I  may  not  be  strictly  accurate  there.     Then  Bishop  Jewel, 
whom  I  quote  in  my  book  at  page  626,  writing  on  April  14th, 
1559,  says  that  Elizabeth  refused  to  '  banish  '  the  Mass  '  from 
her  private  chapel.'     '  She  has  however,'  he  says,  '  so  regulated 
this  Mass  of  hers,  that,  although  many  things  are  done  therein 
which  are  scarcely  to  be  endured,  it  may  yet  be  heard  without 
any  great  danger.'    I  myself  suggest  that  he  refers  there  to 
the  Order  of  the  Communion. 

8409.  (Sir  Lewis  Dibdin.)  That  is  Dr.  Gibson's  point  again, 
'  such  portions  of  the  Mass  in  English  as  were  so  ordered  under 
Henry  VIII.'  ? — I  had  the  impression  that  the  Epistle  and 
Gospel  were  read  in  English. 

8410.  (Rev.  Dr.  Gibson.)  I  think  you  will  find  not. — Then 
that  is  an  error  of  mine,  if  it  is  so.     Then  I  do  not  believe 
myself  that  the  first  Prayer  Book  of  Edward  VI.  made  any 
very  great  change  in  the  externals  of  public  worship.     I  do 
not  believe  there  was  any  great  change  appealing  to  the  eye 
made  under  it.    For  instance,  I  quote  at  page  447  from  Dixon's 
'  History  of  the  Church  of  England '  a  complaint  by  Bucer  in  the 
year  1551,  in  which  he  says,  '  I  may  add  on  ceremonies  that  in 
many  of  your  churches  there  is  still  found  a  studied  repre- 
sentation of  the  execrated  Mass,  in  vestures,  lights,  bowings, 
crossings,  washing  of  the  cup,  breathing  on  the  bread  and  cup, 
carrying  the  book  from  right  to  left  of  the  table,  having  the 
table   where   the  altar   was,   lifting  the  paten  and   cup,   and 
adoration  paid  by  men  who  nevertheless  will  not  communicate. 


IN  HENEY  VIII.'S  EEIGN  275 

All  these  should  be  forbidden.'    That  was  in  the  year  1551 
while  the  first  Prayer  Book  was  in  use. 

8411.  (Chairman.)  He  says  that  these  things  were  done  in 
many  of  the  churches ;  is  that  so  ? — Yes,  '  in  many  of  your 
churches.' 

8412.  But  he  wrote  from  an  extreme  point  of  view  on  the 
other  side,  did  he  not  ? — No  doubt  he  did,  but  then  he  specified 
some  of  the  things  he  objected  to. 

8413.  But  it  does  not  follow  that  he  was  correct  in  saying 
that  the  things  he  objected  to  were  done  in  many  of  the 
churches  ;  he  might  have  attributed  such  practices  to  far  more 
churches  than  those  in  which  they  really  existed.     Sometimes 
we  come  across  a  similar  state  of  mind  now-a-days,  do  we 
not?    You  must  take  his  evidence  as  that  of  a  biassed  witness, 
surely  ? — If  he  was  biassed,  he  was  biassed  against  all  these 
things. 

8414.  (Sir  Lewis  Dibdin.)  Do  you  know  where  Bucer  was 
when  he  wrote  this  ? — I  cannot  tell  you  at  the  moment.1 

8415.  (Sir  Edward  Clarke.)  He  was  abroad,  was  he  not? 
— But  then  he  was  in  constant  correspondence  with  Hooper 
and  Sandys  and  Grindal  and  all  the  rest  of  them,  and  he  gave 
his  information  on  their  representation  to  him  of  the  facts  as 
they  witnessed  them. 

8416.  (Sir  Lewis  Dibdin.)  Where  do  you  extract  the  letter 
from  ? — From  Dixon's  '  History  of   the  Church  of  England,' 
Volume  III.  page  291. 

8417.  Is   it   not   in    the    Zurich    Letters   in   the    Parker 
Society  ? — No  doubt  it  is,  but,  as  it  happens,  my  books  are 
warehoused,  and  I  cannot  get  at  them. 

8418.  (Rev.  Dr.  Gibson.)  Edward  VI.,  of  course,  came  to 
the  throne  on  January  28,  1547.     In  August  of  that  year  Eoyal 
Injunctions  were  issued,   and  among  the   new  provisions   in 
these   Injunctions  was  an  Order  for  the  reading  of  one  of  the 
Homilies   every   Sunday,   besides    the   old   provision  for  one 
chapter  of  the  New  Testament  to  be  read  at  Matins  and  one 
chapter  of  the  Old  Testament  on  every  Sunday  and  Holy  Day ; 
and,  secondly,  a  direction  was  then  added  that  the  Epistle  and 
Gospel  at  High  Mass  should  be  read  in  English  ? — Yes. 

8419.  That  was  in  Edward's  reign,  not  in  Henry's  reign? 
— Then  I  am  corrected,  but  it  was  before  the  First  Prayer  Book.2 

8420.  Yes,  but  not  at  the  death  of  Henry  VIII. 

8421.  (Bishop  of  Oxford.)  Eeferring  to  that  quotation  from 
Dixon  on  page  447,  your  note  is, '  The  only  difference  consisting 

1  He  was  at  the  time  Professor  of  Divinity  at  Cambridge,  and  his  letter 
is  in  answer  to  Cranmer,  who  had  written  to  ask  Bucer  his  opinion  of  the 
first  Prayer  Book.  So  that  his  knowledge  was  at  first-hand. 

*  I  was  quite  accurate.     See  pp.  15-37. 

T  2 


276  THE  OENAMENTS  RUBRIC  AND 

in  the  service  being  in  English.'  How  do  you  account  for  the 
omission  in  Bucer's  words  of  other  points  which,  if  I  under- 
stand your  contention  rightly,  would  equally  have  been  to  be 
noticed?  There  is  no  mention,  for  instance,  of  the  use  of 
incense  ? — But  I  think  that  is  a  thing  that  the  Puritans  never 
objected  to ;  so  far  as  I  know  the  Zurich  Letters,  and  I  have 
read  them  all,  I  do  not  think  there  is  a  single  objection  to  the 
use  of  incense  at  all  by  the  Puritans.  It  was  Scriptural,  and 
it  was  one  of  those  things  that,  so  far  as  I  know,  they  never 
objected  to. 

8422.  (Chairman.)  Will  you  proceed,  please  ? — Now  I  come 
to   the   ornaments  rubric,   upon  which    everything   hangs.    I 
need  not  read  it,  of  course,  because  you  are  all  familiar  with 
the  ornaments  rubric,  but  I  want  to  point  out  that  the  orna- 
ments rubric  of  Elizabeth  places  the  question  of  the  '  second 
year,'  in  my  humble  opinion,  beyond  any  possibility  of  doubt. 
It  says :    '  And  here   is  to  be  noted  that   the  minister  at  the 
time  of  the  Communion,  and  at  all  other  times  in  his  mini- 
stration, shall  use   such  ornaments  in  the  church  as  were  in 
use  by  the  authority  of  Parliament  in  the  second  year  of  the 
reign  of  King  Edward  VI.,  according  to  the  Act  of  Parliament 
set  in  the  beginning  of  this  book.'     Now  what  that  rubric  states 
is  that  '  such  ornaments,'  not  '  as  were  authorised '  simply, 
but '  such  ornaments  as  were  in  use  by  authority  of  Parliament 
in  the  second  year  of  the  reign  of  King  Edward  VI.,'  shall  still 
be  used.     Now  it  is  beyond  all  possibility  of  doubt  that  the 
prescriptions  of  the  First  Prayer  Book  were  not  in  legal  use  in 
the  second  year  at  all.     The  Prayer  Book  itself  was  not  a  legal 
document  until  the  third  month  of  the  third  year,  and,  there- 
fore, anything  prescribed  by  it  could  not  be  spoken  of  in  the 
ornaments  rubric  of  Elizabeth  as  a  thing  that  was  '  in  use  by 
authority  of  Parliament  in  the  second  year  of  the  reign  of  King 
Edward  VI.'     The  ornaments  rubric   of  Elizabeth,  therefore, 
cannot  cover  the  ceremonial  usage  of  Edward's  second  regnal 
year,  if  we  are  to  restrict  it  simply  to  the  ornaments  prescribed 
by  the  First  Prayer  Book.     It  must,  therefore,  refer  to  what 
was  in  use  before  the  First  Prayer  Book  was  authorised  by  Act 
of  Parliament,  and,  consequently,  so  far  as  I  understand  the 
matter,  it  must  refer  to  the  ceremonial  in  use  under  the  Order 
of  the   Communion,  which,   I   contend,   had   the  authority  of 
Parliament  in  the  second  year. 

8423.  When  was  that  authority  given,  in  your  view  ? — It  was 
given  when  the  Order  of  Communion  came  forth  first  by  the 
Proclamation   of   King    Edward,  which,   as    I   understand   it, 
relied  upon  the  Act  authorising  the  administration  of  the  Holy 
Communion  in  both  kinds. 

8424.  Will  you  give  the  date  ?— March,  1548. 


THE  OEDEE  OF  THE  COMMUNION         277 

8425.  (Sir  Lewis  Dibdin.)  That  is  the  date  of  the  imprint? 
— Yes.      '  Imprinted  at  London  the  VIII  day  of  March  in  the 
second  year  of  the  reign  of  our  Sovereign  Lord  King  Edward 
the   Sixth,  by    Eichard   Grafton,  printer   to   his   most   Eoyal 
Majesty,  in  the  year  of  our  Lord  mdxlviii.' 

8426.  That  is  the  date  of  the  Proclamation? — No,  that  is 
the  date  of  the  publication  of  the  Order  of  the  Communion. 
I  have  not  got  the  precise  date  of  the  Proclamation  here,  but 
it  was  almost  at  the  same  time  as  the  publication  of  the  Order 
of  the  Communion.     I  think  the  Proclamation  came  forth  im- 
mediately afterwards. 

8427.  Immediately  before,    you    mean  ? — Not  before  the 
publication  of  the  book,  did  it  ? 

8428.  Surely?— The  book  was    published  on  the  8th  of 
March,  1548,  and  I  think  immediately  afterwards  it  was  issued, 
with  the  sanction  of  the  Eoyal  Proclamation  which  claimed 
expressly  the  authority  of  the  Act  of  Parliament,  and  referred 
to  '  the  Order  of  the  Communion  '  as  '  such  form  and  manner 
as  hereafter  by  our  authority  with  the  advice  before  mentioned 
is  set   forth  and  declared.'      It  would  be    contemporaneous 
anyhow. 

8429.  That  is  stated  on  page  653  of  your  book,  is  it  not  ? 
—Yes. 

8430.  And  the  statement  seems  to  be  that  'it  was  issued 
under  the  sanction  of  a  Eoyal  Proclamation,  which  claimed 
expressly  the  authority  of  the  Act  of  Parliament,  and  referred 
to  "  the  Order  of  the  Communion  "  as  "  such  form  and  manner 
as  hereafter,  by  our  authority  with  the  advice  before  mentioned, 
is  set  forth  and  declared."  ' 

8431.  That  is  in  inverted  commas ;  is  that  right ;  is  it  not 
quite   clear   from   the   Proclamation   that  'the  advice  before 
mentioned '  is  that  of  the  Lord  Protector,  and  not  the  advice 
of  Parliament  at  all  ?—  I  do  not  think  so.    . 

8432.  Now  may  we  look  at  that  ?    Here  is  the  Proclamation  : 
'  Edward,  by  the  Grace  of  God  King  of  England ' — then  follow 
his  titles.     '  To  all  and  singular  our  loving  subjects,  greeting : 
for  so  much  as  in  our  High  Court  of  Parliament  lately  h  olden 
at  Westminster,  it  was  by  us,  with  the  consent  of  the  Lords 
spiritual  and  temporal,  and  Commons  there  assembled,  most 
godly  and  agreeably  to  Christ's  Holy  Institution  enacted,  that 
the  most  blessed  Sacrament  of  the  Body  and  Blood  of  our 
Saviour  Christ,  should  from  henceforth  be  commonly  delivered 
and  ministered  unto  all  persons,  within  our  Eealm  of  England 
and  Ireland,  and  other  our  dominions,  under  both  kinds,  that 
is  to  say,  of  bread  and  wine  (except  necessity  otherwise  require) 
lest  every  man  phantasying  and  devising  a  sundry  way  by  him- 
self, in  the  use  of  this  most  Blessed  Sacrament  of  unity,  there 


278         THE  OEDEE  OF  THE  COMMUNION 

might  thereby  arise  any  unseemly  and  ungodly  diversity :  Our 
pleasure  is,  by  the  advice  of  our  most  dear  uncle  the  Duke  of 
Somerset,  Governor  of  our  person,  and  Protector  of  our  Eealms, 
Dominions,  and  Subjects,  and  other  of  our  Privy  Council,  that 
the  said  blessed  Sacrament  be  ministered  unto  our  people,  only 
after  such  form  and  manner  as  hereafter,  by  our  authority,  with 
the  advice  before  mentioned,  is  set  forth  and  declared.'  Surely 
it  is  perfectly  clear  that  the  advice  is  the  advice  of  the  Lord 
Protector,  and  the  consent  of  Parliament,  which  has  been 
rehearsed  in  the  earlier  part  of  that  Proclamation,  has  to  do 
solely  with  the  fact  of  Communion  in  both  kinds  and  has 
nothing  to  do  with  the  service  at  all.  In  other  words,  is  it 
not  a  mistake  to  say  as  you  do,  on  page  653,  that  '  the  advice 
before  mentioned '  means  the  advice  of  Parliament  ? — But  it 
says  by  the  advice  of  the  Lord  Protector  and  the  Privy  Council, 
and  they  were  the  executors  of  the  Act  of  Parliament ;  it  was 
their  function  to  put  the  Act  of  Parliament  into  force.  As  I 
understand  it,  the  King  says,  by  the  advice  of  his  uncle  the 
Lord  Protector  and  the  Privy  Council. 

8433.  Yes,  that  is  what  he  says,  not  of  the  Act  of  Par- 
liament ? l — No,  but  he  refers  to  the  Act  of  Parliament. 

8434.  (Chairman.)  Will  you  state  what  Act  of  Parliament  ? 
— The  Act  which  authorised  the  Communion  in  both  kinds. 

8435.  What  is  the    date    of    the   Act?— 1    Edward    VI., 
Chapter  1.     If  I  may  venture  to  do  so,  I  should  like  to  read 
the  next  paragraph  in  my  book  in  order  to  explain  my  meaning : 
'  In  addition  to  this  Proclamation  enjoining  the  general  use  of 
"  the  Order  of  the  Communion "  the  Privy   Council   sent   to 
every  bishop,  together  with  the  copies  of  the  book,  a  circular 
letter  enforcing  its  use.' 

8436.  (Sir  Lewis  Dibdin.)  Before  you  go  to  that  I  should 
like  to  finish  this  question.     Your   book    says  distinctly  that 
this  form  was  put  out  '  by  our  authority  with  the  advice  before 
mentioned,'  which  is  in  the  Act  of  Parliament ;  that  is  what  you 
state  ? — Yes. 

8437.  If  that  were  so  I  think  we  should  all  understand  your 
argument  very  clearly,  but  when  the  Proclamation  is  looked  at, 
'  the  advice  before  mentioned '  is  not  the  advice  of  the  Act  of 
Parliament  but  is  the  advice  of  the   Lord  Protector  and  the 
Privy  Council  ? — Yes,  but  I  think  that  claims  the  authority  of 
the  Act  of  Parliament.     The  Privy  Council  could  not  do  any- 
thing without  the  Act  of  Parliament. 

1  Parliament  authorised  Henry  VIII.  to  make  a  will  appointing  certain 
persons  to  administer  the  affairs  of  the  realm  during  the  minority  of  his 
son.  He  appointed  a  Council  accordingly,  whose  acts  had  thus  statutory 
force.  The  sanction  of  the  Order  of  the  Communion  by  the  King  in  Council 
had  therefore  Parliamentary  authority. 


HAD  STATUTOBY  AUTHOEITY  279 

8438.  They  could  do  what  they  professed  to  do,  put  out  the 
Proclamation.     The  King  puts  out  the  Proclamation  with  the 
advice  of  certain  persons,  those  persons  being  the  Lord  Protector 
and  the  Privy  Council.     That  is  a  very  different  thing  from 
saying  that  it  was  by  the  advice  of  Parliament. — But  then  the 
King  and  the  Privy  Council  could  not  change  the  laws  of  the 
Eealm  without  an  Act  of  Parliament. 

8439.  The  question  is  not  what  they  could  have  done  but 
what  they  purported  to  do,  and  it  is  now  agreed  that  the  Pro- 
clamation was  not,  as  stated  in  your  book,   by  the  advice  of 
Parliament,  but  by  the  advice  of  the  Lord  Protector  and  the 
Privy  Council? — On  their  advice,  but  not  on  their  authority 
apart  from  the  Act  of  Parliament. 

8440.  But  may  we  get  it  that  that  is  a  mistake ;  that  although 
it  is  stated  in  your  book  that  it  is  with  the  advice  of  Parliament, 
it  really  means  with  the  advice  of  the  Lord  Protector  and  the 
Privy   Council?     We   can  argue   about  it  afterwards   to   any 
extent  ? — No,  with  the  advice  of  the  Privy  Council  basing  them- 
selves on  the  Act  of  Parliament.     The  Act  does  not  advise. 

8441.  (Sir  Edward  Clarke.)  Then  you  would  so  modify  the 
passage  ? — That  is  what  I  meant  by  it.     An  Act  of  Parliament 
does  not  advise ;  it  enacts. 

8442.  (Sir  Lewis  Dibdin,)  You  meant  us  to  understand  that 
'the  advice  before  mentioned'  meant  the  advice  of  the  Lord 
Protector  and  the  Privy  Council  ? — Yes. 

8443.  You  have  not  mentioned  either  one  or  the  other?  — 
Perhaps  that  was  careless ;   but  the  Proclamation  rests  itself 
and  bases  itself  upon  the  Act  of  Parliament. 

8444.  (Rev.  Dr.  Gibson.)  Then  may  I  ask  for  what  does  the 
Proclamation  claim  the  authority  of  the  Act  of  Parliament  ? — 
For  the  Communion  in  both  kinds. 

8445.  Not  for  the  service  ?  —Yes,  for  both. 

8446.  Will  you  tell  me  where  it   claims   the  authority  of 
Parliament  for  the  service? — I   do  not  take  that  passage  as 
isolated. 

8447.  (Sir  Lewis  Dibdin.)  But  will  you  take  the  Proclama- 
tion itself ;  you  are  not  tied  down  to  your  book.     Let  us  take 
the  Proclamation  itself;  can  you  show  us  where  in  the  Pro- 
clamation the  King  claims  the  authority  of  Parliament  for  the 
service    as   distinguished  from  the  giving  of  Communion  in 
both  kinds  ? — I  speak  from  memory,  but  does  not  the  Proclama- 
tion quote  part  of  the  Order  of  the  Communion 

8448.  I  have  read  it. — Not  the  whole  of  it  ?    I  may  be 
inaccurate. 

8449.  Will  you  look  at  the  Proclamation  (handing  the  same 
to  the  Witness)  ? — First  of  all  it  recites  the  Act ;  it  bases  itself 
upon  the  Act.     It  says  :  '  Our  pleasure  is  by  the  advice  of  our 


280         THE  OEDEE  OF  THE  COMMUNION 

most  dear  Uncle,  the  Duke  of  Somerset,  Governor  of  our  person 
and  Protector  of  our  Eealms,  Dominions,  and  subjects  and 
other  of  our  Privy  Council,  that  the  said  blessed  Sacrament  be 
ministered  unto  our  people  only  after  such  form  and  manner 
as  hereafter,  by  our  authority,  with  the  advice  before  mentioned, 
is  set  forth  and  declared.'  That  refers  to  the  Order  of  Com- 
munion. 

8450.  (Chairman.)  But  where  is  it  set  forth  and  declared  ? — 
In  the  book  which  was  published  at  the  time — in  the  Order  of 
the  Communion. 

8451.  (Sir  Lewis  Dibdin.)  There  is  not  a  word  in  the  Pro- 
clamation, is  there,  about  the  service  being  in  pursuance  of  the 
Act,  or  founded  on  the  Act,  or  on  the  authority  of  the  Act  ? — 
I  read  it  so. 

8452.  But  you  have  just  had  the  book ;  what  are  the  words 
that  you  rely  upon  ? — The  Proclamation  bases  itself  for  its  entire 
authority  on  the  Act  of  Parliament. 

8453.  (Rev.  Dr.  Gibson.)   For  its  entire  authority  for  the 
service  ? — Yes,  because  it  goes  on  to  say  that  in  virtue  of  that 
Act,  in  consequence  of  that  Act,  the  King  with  the  advice  of 
the  Lord  Protector  and  the   Privy  Council  puts  forth,   or  is 
about  to  put  forth,  the  Order  of  the  Communion. 

8454.  The  Statute  ordered  the  Communion  in  both  kinds  ? 
—Yes. 

8455.  The  Proclamation  quotes  the  authority  of  Parliament 
for  it  ?— Yes. 

8456.  And  then  in  order  to  have  that  Statute  well  executed 
the  King  with  the  advice  and  consent  of  the  Lord  Protector's 
Grace  and  the  rest  of  the  Council  has  caused  this  service  to  be 
drawn  up  ? — Yes. 

8457.  But  that  does  not  quote  the  authority  of  Parliament 
for  the  service  in  the  very  least,  so  far  as  I  can  see  ? — I  read 
it   so.     I   cannot  understand  its  having  any  authority   at  all 
without  it.     The  King  and  the  Lord  Protector  had  no  legal 
power  to  put  forth  an  Order  of  Communion  except  with  Parlia- 
mentary authority. 

8458.  (Sir  Lewis  Dibdin.)  Perhaps  they  had  not;  we  will 
not  argue  whether  it  was  so  or  not ;  but  the  question  is,  what 
they  did  and  what  they  purported  to  do.     I  do  not  want  to 
press   you  unduly  about   this,  but  here  is  the   Proclamation, 
which  first  recites  the  act,  as  Dr.  Gibson  has  told  you,  and  then 
says,  that  the  King  in  order  to  give  effect  to  what  the  Act  says 
is  to  be  done,  has  put  out  a  service.     That  surely  does  not  give 
to  the  service   the    authority  of   the   Act   of   Parliament? — I 
should  certainly  read  it  so.     Perhaps  I  may  take  together  with 
it  then  the  circular  letter  which  the  Privy  Council  put  forth. 

8459.  What  do  you  refer  to  in  that? — Here  is  the  letter 


HAD  STATUTOEY  AUTHOEITY  281 

which  was  issued  by  the  Privy  Council  to  every  bishop  in 
England ;  I  quote  it  at  page  653  of  my  book  :  '  After  our  most 
hearty  commendations  unto  your  Lordships,  where  in  the 
Parliament  late  holden  at  Westminster  it  was,  amongst  other 
things,  most  godly  established  that,  according  to  the  first  insti- 
tution and  use  of  the  primitive  Church,  the  most  Holy  Sacra- 
ment of  the  Body  and  Blood  of  our  Saviour  Jesus  Christ  should 
be  distributed  to  the  people  under  the  kinds  of  bread  and  wine  ; 
according  to  the  effect  whereof  the  King's  Majesty  minding, 
with  the  advice  and  consent  of  the  Lord  Protector's  Grace,  and 
the  rest  of  the  Council,  to  have  the  said  Statute  well  executed 
in  such  sort,  as  like  as  it  is  agreeable  to  the  Word  of  God, 
so  the  same  may  also  be  faithfully  and  reverently  received  of 
his  most  loving  subjects,  to  their  comfort  and  wealths,  hath 
caused  sundry  of  his  Majesty's  most  grave  and  learned  prelates 
and  others,  learned  men  in  the  Scriptures,  to  assemble  them- 
selves for  this  matter,  who,  after  long  conference  together,  have, 
with  deliberate  advice,  finally  agreed  upon  such  an  Order,  to  be 
used  in  all  places  of  the  King's  Majesty's  dominions,  in  the  dis- 
tribution of  the  said  most  blessed  Sacrament  as  may  appear 
unto  you  by  the  Book  thereof,  which  we  send  herewith  unto 
you.' 

8460.  So  far  you  would  say  that  there  was  no  authority  of 
Parliament  for  the  service  in  anything  that  you  have  read  yet ; 
no  allegation  that  they  had  got  the  authority  of  Parliament  for 
the  service  ? — They  had  the  authority  of  Parliament  to  put  forth 
a  form. 

8461.  Where  are  those  words  ?    They  had  the  authority  of 
Parliament  for  the  distribution  of  the  Sacrament  in  both  kinds, 
and  then  in  order  that  that  may  be  properly  executed,  the  King 
says  that  he  and  his  Council  have  agreed  upon  a  form  ? — But 
there  must  have  been  a  form  for  the  distribution  in  both  kinds. 

8462.  I  do  not  know  whether  there  must  or  must  not ;  the 
question  is  what  this  letter  says  ? — I  read  it  as  basing  the  whole 
thing  upon  the  Act.     They  go  on  to  say  that  the  bishops  accord- 
ingly are  '  to  cause  these  books  to  be  delivered  to  every  parson, 
vicar  and  curate  within  your  diocese,  with  such  diligence  as 
they  may  have  sufficient  time  well  to  instruct  and  advise  them- 
selves,  for   the   distribution   of  the   most  Holy  Communion, 
according  to  the  order  of  this  book,  before  this  Easter  time,  and 
that  they  may  by  your  good  means,  be  well  directed  to  use  such 
good,  gentle  and   charitable  instruction  of   their   simple   and 
unlearned  parishioners  as  may  be  all  to  their  good  satisfaction 
as  much  as  may  be,  praying  you  to  consider  that  this  Order 
is  set  forth  to  the  intent  there  should  be  in  all  parts  of  the 
Eealm  and  among  all  men  one  uniform  manner  quietly  used. 
The  execution  whereof  like  as  it  shall  stand  very  much  in  the 


282  AUTHOEITIES  CITED 

diligence  of  you  and  others  of  your  vocation ;  so  do  we  ef tsoons 
require  you  to  have  a  diligent  respect  thereunto,  as  ye  tender 
the  King's  Majesty's  pleasure,  and  will  answer  to  the 
contrary.' 

8463.  Is  there  anything  in  that  which  claims  the  authority 
of  Parliament  for  the  service  ? — Certainly  that  is  the  contem- 
porary opinion.     Foxe  says,  '  By  means  as  well  of  this  letter 
and  the  godly  order  of  the  learned,  as  also  of  the  statute  and 
Act   of   Parliament   before   mentioned    [1    Edward  VI.  c.  i,] 
made   for   the    establishing   thereof — that   is    the   Order    of 
Communion. 

8464.  He    does  not  mean  that ;   he  means  made  for  the 
establishing  of  the  Communion  in  both  kinds.     Do  you  regard 
Foxe  as  a  particularly  accurate  writer  ? — Not  always. 

8465.  (Rev.  Dr.  Gibson,)  Is  not  what  you  quote  from  Heylin, 
lower  down  on  that  same  page,  much  more  accurate  :  '  So  far 
the  Parliament  enacted,  in  relation  to  the  thing  itself,  as  the 
subject   matter,  that  the  Communion  should   be   delivered  in 
both  kinds  to  all  the  good  people  of  the  kingdoms.     But  for 
the  form  in  which  it  was  to  be  administered,   that   was   left 
wholly  to  the  King  and  by  the  King  committed  to  the  care  of 
the  bishops  (of  which  more  hereafter) ;  the  Parliament  declaring 
only, "  That  a  godly  exhortation  should  be  made  by  the  ministers, 
therein  expressing  the  great  benefit  and  comfort  promised  to 
them  which  worthily  receive  the  same,  and  the  great  danger 
threatened   by  God  to  all  such  persons  as  should  unworthily 
receive  it "  ?  l — That  is  what  I  was  referring  to. 

8466.  That  gives  the  distinction,  it  seems  to  me,  as  perfectly 
as  it  can  possibly  be  given  :    That  there  is  authority  of  Parlia- 
ment for    the  Communion  in  both  kinds,  and   the  Order  of 
Communion,  the  service,  was  left  wholly  to  the  King — that  is  to 
say,  the  Act  of  Parliament  is  silent  about  it  ? — But  of  course 
various  facts  must  be  taken  into  consideration    in   arguing  this 
matter   out.     Sir  Lewis  Dibdin  will  admit  that  the  Order  of 
Communion,  as  well  as  the  first  Prayer  Book,  was  drawn  up  by 
picked  committees,  and  whatever  these  picked  committees  drew 
up  on  these  questions  of  ceremonial  had  the  force  of  an  Act  of 
Parliament. 

8467.  (Sir  Lewis  Dibdin.)  I  do  not  admit  it  at  all. — That 
is  my  contention. 

8468.  (Archbishop  of  Canterbury.)  On  what  do  you  rely  for 
that? — I  rely  on  an  Act  of  Parliament  of  Henry  VIII.,  which  I 
quote  at  page  659. 

8469.  (Chairman.)  What  is  the  date  of  the  Act  ? — The  refer- 

1  But  if  Dr.  Gibson  had  continued  his  quotation  from  Heylin,  as  given 
in  my  book  (p.  656),  he  would  have  found  that  Heylin  claims  the  authority 
of '  the  King  and  the  Act  of  Parliament '  for  the  Order  of  the  Communion. 


32  HEN.  VIII.  C.  26  283 

ence  is  32  Henry  VIII.,  Chapter  xxvi,  'Whereas  the  King's 
Majesty  .  .  .  hath  appointed  .  .  .  the  archbishop  and  sundry 
bishops  of  both  provinces  .  .  .  and  also  a  great  number  of  the 
most  learned,  honestest  and  most  virtuous  sort  of  the  Doctors  of 
Divinity,  men  of  discretion,  judgment  and  good  disposition  of 
the  realm,  to  the  intent  that  .  .  .  they  should  declare  by  writing 
and  publish  as  well  the  principal  articles  and  points  of  our  faith 
and  belief  with  the  declaration  true  understanding  and  observa- 
tion of  all  such  other  expedient  points  as  by  them,  with  his 
Grace's  advice,  counsel  and  consent,  shall  be  thought  needful 
and  expedient,  and  also  for  the  lawful  rites,  ceremonies  and 
observations  of  God's  service  within  his  Grace's  realm  ...  Be 
it  therefore  enacted  .  .  .  that  all  and  every  determinations, 
declarations,  decrees,  definitions,  resolutions,  and  ordinances, 
as,  according  to  God's  Word  and  Christ's  Gospel,  by  his 
Majesty's  advice  and  confirmation  by  his  letters  patent,  shall 
at  any  time  hereafter  be  made  set  forth  declared  defined  resolved 
and  ordained  by  the  said  archbishops,  bishops,  and  doctors, 
now  appointed,  or  by  other  persons  hereafter  to  be  appointed 
by  his  Majesty,  or  else  by  the  whole  clergy  of  England,  in  or 
upon  the  matter  of  Christ's  religion  and  Christian  faith  and  the 
lawful  rites  ceremonies  and  observations  of  the  same,  shall  be 
in  all  and  every  point  limitation  and  circumstance  thereof,  by 
all  his  Grace's  subjects  and  other  residents  and  inhabitants  within 
the  realm  .  .  .  fully  believed,  obeyed,  observed,  and  performed 
...  as  if  the  said  determinations  declarations  .  .  .  had  been  by 
express  words,  terms  and  sentences  plainly  set  out  and  contained 
in  the  present  Act.  Provided  that  nothing  be  done,  ordained 
...  by  authority  of  this  Act  which  shall  be  repugnant  or  con- 
trariant  to  the  laws  and  statutes  of  this  realm.' 

8470.  (Sir  Lewis  Dibdin.)  This  is  another  point,  is  it  not  ? 
This  is    not  claiming  the    authority   of    the    original   statute 
1  Edward  VI.,  Chapter  1,  for  the  Order  of  Communion,  but 
saying  that  it  was  a  legal  Order  under  this  Act  of  Henry  VIII. 
which  you  have  quoted? — Yes. 

8471.  If  that  were  so,  I  suppose  no  Act  of  Uniformity  would 
have  been  necessary  at  all,  would  it  ?    They  could  have  put  out 
the  Prayer  Book  under  that  Act,  too  ? — I  suppose  they  could, 
but  then  the  Act  enjoins  no  penalties  for  the  transgressing  of  it. 

8472.  Yes  it  does,  if  you  will  forgive  my  saying  so  ? — This 
Act  that  I  have  quoted  ? 

8473.  Yes. — I  do  not  think  so. 

8474.  You  will  find  that  it  does,  I  think.    But  before  we  go 
into  that,  are  you  not  aware  that  that  Act  was  repealed  by 
1  Edward  VI.,  Chapter  12,  that  is  to  say,  that  the  same  Eoyal 
Assent  which  gave  assent  to  the  Act  for  Communion  in  both 
kinds  repealed  that  Act  of  Henry,  so  that  nothing  could  have 


284  32  HEN.   VIII.  EEPBALED  IN  1863 

been  done  under  it  ? — I  think  the  Act  was  repealed  in  the  reign 
of  Queen  Victoria. 

8475.  I  notice  that  you  say  that  in  your  book,  but  I  think 
you  are  in  error  ? — I  do  not  think  so. 

8476.  Perhaps  I  am  wrong,  but  if  you  look  at  the  Statutes 
at  Large  you  will  see  a  statement  of  what  this  Act  of  Henry  VIII. 
contained.     It  is  32  Henry  VIII.,  Chapter  26,  and  at  the  end  of 
it l  are  these  words  '  Repealed  by  the  general  words  of  Stat.  I., 
Ed.  6.,  c.  12,  Sec.  3.'     Those  general  words  seem,  if  I  may  say 
so,  quite  adequate  for  the  purpose.     1  Edward  VI.,  Chapter  12, 
was  an  Act  dealing  with  penalties  of  various  kinds,  and  at  the 
end  of    the  third    section,   which  deals  with   certain  specific 
Statutes  and  repeals  them,  it  says  :  '  And  all  and  every  other 
Act  or  Acts  of   Parliament  concerning  doctrine  or  matters  of 
religion,  and  all  and  every  branch,  article,  sentence  and  matter, 
pains    and  forfeitures    contained    mentioned   or  in   any   wise 
declared  in  any  of  the  same  Acts  of  Parliament  or  Estatutes, 
shall  from  henceforth  be  repealed,  and  utterly  void  and  of  none 
effect.' 2     You  observe  the,  words  in  the  Act  of  Parliament,  '  Con- 
cerning doctrine  or  matters  of  religion  ?  ' — That  was  as  regards 
penalties,  was  it  not  ? 

8477.  No ;  it  was  the  whole  Act  where  there  was  a  penalty  ? 
— But  why  then  should  it  be  necessary  to  repeal  it  in  the  reign 
of  Queen  Victoria  ? 

8478.  (Sir  Edward  Clarke.)  Because  we  had  a  Statute  Law 
Revision  Committee  then.     Although  the  effect  of  repealing  one 
Act  might  be  to  repeal  or  destroy  it,  where  the  Act  was  not 
repealed  in  terms,  it  remained  upon  the  list  of  statutes,  and  our 
Statute  Law  Revision  Committee  cleared  off  a  great  deal  of 
absolutely  obsolete  Acts,  or  Acts  which  were  practically  repealed 
by  another  statute  ;  it  was  simply  a  clearing-off  process. 

8479.  (Sir  Lewis  Dibdin.)  And  I  may  supplement  what  Sir 
Edward  Clarke  says  by  reading  you  the  Act.     The  preamble  of 
every  Statute  Law  Revision  Act,  but  of  this  one  in  particular 
in  1863,  is  '  It  is  expedient  that  certain  enactments  (mentioned 
in  the  Schedule  to  this  Act)  which  have  ceased  to  be  in  force 
otherwise  than  by  express  and  specific  repeal,  or  have,  by  lapse 
of    time  and   change  of    circumstances,3  become  unnecessary, 
should  be  expressly  and  specifically  repealed.'     You  see  there 

1  This  is  a  slip  on  the  part  of  Sir  Lewis  Dibdin.     The  Statutes  at  Large 
do  not  give  32  Hen.  VIII.  c.  26  at  all.     The  editor  merely  refers  to  the 
Statute  in  five  and  a-half  lines,  and  puts  a  marginal  note  of  its  alleged 
repeal  by  1  Ed.  VI.  c.  12. 

2  This  argument  proves  too  much.     If  valid,  it  proves  that  all  Acts  of 
Parliament  on  the  Statute  Book  dealing  with  doctrine  or  religion  were 
repealed,  including  all  the  anti-Papal  legislation  of  Henry  VIII. 

8  But  there  was  no  '  lapse  of  time  and  change  of  circumstances  '  in  the 
beginning  of  1547.     See  my  answer  to  the  whole  of  this  argument,  p.  144. 


WAS  IT  EEPEALED  BY  1  ED.  VI.  C.  12?     285 

had  been  no  express  and  specific  repeal  of  that  Act  of 
Henry  VIII.  It  had  been  repealed  by  general  words  in  the 
Act  of  Edward,  which  I  have  read  to  you  ;  therefore  it  remained, 
as  Sir  Edward  Clarke  has  told  you,  on  the  Statute  Book,  in  a 
general  kind  of  way  repealed,  but  not  specifically  and  specially 
repealed  until,  when  the  practice  of  clearing  up  the  Statute  Book 
and  cutting  out  what  was  useless  and  gone,  for  different  reasons, 
came  in,  then  in  one  of  the  very  earliest  Statute  Law  Eevision 
Acts,  this  Act  was  cut  out,  not  because  it  was  law  till  then,  but 
because  it  had  never  been  specifically  repealed  ? — What  is  the 
effect  in  law  of  a  Statute  not  specifically  repealed  ? 

8480.  If  it  is  repealed  by  general  words  it  is  repealed  ? — 
What  Act  do  you  say  repealed  it  ? 

8481.  The  Act  of  1  Edward  VI.,  Chapter  12,  Section  3— this 
very  session  that  we  are  dealing  with?— Does  it  mention  this 
Act  specifically  ? 

8482.  No  ;  that  is  just  the  point. 

8483.  (Sir  Edward  Clarke.)  If  it  had  mentioned  that  Act 
specifically,  that  Act  would  have  disappeared  by  virtue  of  that 
Statute  from  the  Statute  Book,  but  it  destroys  the  effect  alto- 
gether of  the  Act  without  specifically  repealing  it. 

8484.  (Sir   Lewis    Dibdin.)   If    the   Act,   1    Edward  VI., 
Chapter  12,  had  mentioned  that  Act  it  would  have  specifically 
repealed  it ;  it  is  because  it  did  not  mention  it  but  says  that  all 
Acts  dealing  with  that  subject  matter  are  repealed,  that  it  was 
only  a  general  repeal — which  was  quite  effective  to  repeal  it, 
but  still  a  general  repeal — and  therefore  requiring  this  specific 
repeal  in  1863.    I  point  this  out  to  you,  if  that  Act  had  been 
on  the  Statute  Book  is  it  in  the  least  likely  that  we  should  have 
had  a  series  of  Acts  of  Uniformity  dealing  with  the  Prayer  Book 
when  the  whole  thing  could  have  been  done  under  that  Act  of 
Henry  VIII.,  by  a  sort  of  Order  in  Council  ? l — I  have  read  the 
Act.     I  have  not  got  it    all  in   my  memory   now,   but,   as   I 
remember,  the  Act  does  not  prescribe  penalties. 

8485.  (Sir  Edward  Clarke.)  But  that  is  not  of  much  conse- 
quence.    Disobedience  would  be  a  misdemeanour,  whether  there 
was  any  penalty  specified  or  not  ? — But  would  it  be  a  punish- 
able offence  ? 

8486.  Yes,  punishable  as  a  misdemeanour. 

8487.  (Sir  Lewis  Dibdin.)  But  I  must  refer  you  to  the  Act. 
This  Act,  32  Henry  VIII.,  Chapter  26,  did  provide  penalties. 
You  have  read  the  effective  part  of  it,  and  when  it  gets  to  the 
end  it  says :    '  All    and   every   determinations,    declarations, 
decrees,  definitions,    resolutions,   and   ordinances '   are   to    be 
'  fully  believed,  obeyed,  observed,  and  performed  .  .  .  upon  the 

1  See  my  answer  to  this  argument,  p.  153. 


286      THE  AEGUMENT  PEOVES  TOO  MUCH 

pains  and  penalties  therein  to  be  comprised '  (so  that  it  left 
it,  you  see,  to  the  authority  to  state  its  own  penalties  in  the 
Order  and  gave  it  Parliamentary  sanction) l  '  as  if  the  same 
determinations,  declarations,  decrees,  definitions,  resolutions  and 
ordinances  and  every  one  of  them  with  the  pains  and  penalties 
therein  comprised  had  been,  were,  or  should  be  by  express  words, 
terms  and  sentences  plainly  and  fully  made,  set  forth,  declared, 
rehearsed  and  contained  in  this  present  Act.'  So  that  it  was 
an  Act  with  penalties  ? — Yes.  I  am  sorry  to  trouble  you  or  to 
be  tedious,  but  to  get  my  own  mind  clear,  what  exactly  does 
the  Act,  which  you  say  repealed  it,  say  ? 

8488.  It  was  '  An  Act   for   the  repeal  of   certain    Statutes 
concerning  Treasons,  Felonies,  etc.'     (This  Act  of  Henry  VIII. 
was  an  Act  with  penalties.)     Then  after  a  great  many  specific 
repeals,  the  third  section  says,  '  and  all  and  every  other  Act  or 
Acts  of  Parliament  concerning  doctrine  or  matters  of  religion  ; 
and  all  and  every  branch,  article,  sentence  and  matter,  pains 
and  forfeitures  contained,  mentioned,  or  in  any  wise  declared 
in  any  of  the  same  Acts  of  Parliament  or  Estatutes,  shall  from 
henceforth  be  repealed  and  utterly  void  and  of   none  effect.' 
Those  are  the  words. — But  what  was  the  heading ;  does  the 
heading  show  the  meaning  of  it  ? 

8489.  '  An  Act  for  the  repeal  of  certain  Statutes  concerning 
Treasons,  Felonies,  etc.'  ? — Treasons  and  felonies  would  not 
apply,  but  the  '  etc.'  might  cover  it. 

8490.  That,  in  my  view,  disposes  of  the  Act  of  Henry  VIII. , 
and  only  that ;  it  disposes  of  the  sanction  endeavoured  to  be 
given  to  the  Order  of  Communion  by  describing  it  as  an  Order 
under  32  Henry  VIII.,  Chapter  26.     It  does  that  and  nothing 
else ;  it  leaves  whatever  force  any  other  Act  has  in  relation  to 
the  Order   of   Communion   where   it  was  ? — The    Committees 
appointed  in  virtue  of  the  Act  25  Henry  VIII.,  Chapter  19, 
however,  continued  their  work.     They  sat  at  Windsor,  and  they 
proposed  the  Order  of  Communion. 

8491.  How  do  you  know  they  were  appointed  under  that 
Act  ? — Practically  the  same  men  continued  mostly. 

8492.  The  same  men  as  whom  ? — No,  I  beg  your  pardon, 
they  were  appointed  by  Edward  VI. 

8493.  Without  any  reference  to  this  Statute  at  all  ? — No  ; 
the  Statute  says  '  or  by  other  persons  hereafter  to  be  appointed 
by  his  Majesty,  or  else  by  the  whole  clergy  of  England.'     Agree- 
ably to  this,  Convocation  appointed  the  Committee  which  com- 
piled '  The  Order  of  the  Communion.' 

1  But  it  was  just  because  this  was  found  to  be  ineffectual  that  the 
Preamble  of  the  first  Act  of  Uniformity  says  that  an  Act  of  Uniformity 
with  special  machinery  and  penalties  was  necessary. 


25  HEN.  VIII.  C.   19  287 

8494.  You  are  not  able  to  tell  us  that  they  were  appointed 
with  regard  to  it  ? — So  I  read  it. 

8494A.  Then  the  first  Act  of  Elizabeth  revived  the  Act  of 
Henry  VIII.  which  sanctioned  all  these  things,  did  it  not  ? — 
The  Act  of  1  Elizabeth,  Chapter  1,  revived  25  Henry  VIII., 
Chapter  19. 

8495.  (Rev.  Dr.  Gibson.)  Then  your  only  evidence  for  there 
being  the  authority  of  Parliament  for  the  ritual  before  the  first 
Prayer  Book  is  contained  in  your  assertion  that  the  Order  of 
Communion  was  published  by  the  authority  of  Parliament ;  and, 
secondly,  that  this  Act  32  Henry  VIII.,  Chapter  26,  gave  the 
authority  of  Parliament  to  whatever  was  existing  then  ? — No, 
I  am  going  to  refer  to  something  else. 

8496.  Are  you  going  to  take  another  point  for  that? — 
Yes. 

8497.  May  we  understand  what  it  is  exactly  ? — I  say  that  the 
Act  1  Elizabeth,  Chapter  1,  revived  25  Henry  VIII.,  Chapter  19. 

8498.  But  how  can  1  Elizabeth,  Chapter  1,   in   any  way 
indicate  the  authority  of  Parliament  as  existing  in  the  reign  of 
Edward  VI.  ? — No,  I  do  not  mean  for  the  Order  of  Communion. 

8499.  No,  not  for  the  Order  of  Communion,  but  for  the  whole 
system  which  was  before  the  First  Prayer  Book. 

8500.  (Sir   Lewis   Dibdin.)   I   think    your    point   is    that 
25   Henry  VIII.,  Chapter  19,  was   in   force  in  Edward  VI.'s 
reign  ? — Yes,  repealed  by  Mary  and  revived  by  Elizabeth. 

8501.  Therefore,  your  point   is  that  the  ceremonial  in  the 
second  year  of  Edward  meant  ceremonial  which  by  virtue  of 
25  Henry  VIII.,  Chapter  19,  was  rendered  legal  as  laid  down 
by  the  old  Canons  for  all  time  ? — Yes,  that  is  while  they  lasted. 

8502.  That  is  your  point  ?— Yes. 

8503.  (Eev.  Dr.  Gibson.}   1  Elizabeth,  Chapter  1,  revived 
25  Henry  VIII.,  Chapter  19  ?— Yes. 

8504.  Which  was  in  force  in  Edward  VI.'s  reign  till  repealed 
by  Mary  ;  is  that  the  argument  ? — Yes,  repealed  by  Mary  and 
revived  by  Elizabeth ;  and  that  Act  says,  '  Provided  also  such 
Canons,  constitutions,  ordinances,  and  synodals  provincial  being 
already  made,  which  be  not  contrariant  to  the  laws,  statutes,  and 
customs  of  this  realm,  nor  to  the  damage  and  hurt  of  the  King's 
Eoyal  prerogative,  shall  now  still  be  used  and  executed  as  they 
were  afore  the  making  of  this  Act,  till  such  term  as  they  be 
viewed,  searched,  or  otherwise  ordered  and  determined  by  the 
said  two  and  thirty  persons,  or  the  more  part  of  them,  according 
to  the  ten  our  form  and  effect  of  this  present  Act.' 

8505.  (Sir   Lewis  Dibdin.)   Could  you  tell    me — had  the 
Canons  the  force  of  an  Act  of  Parliament  prior  to  25  Henry  VIII., 
Chapter  19  ? — No,  I  cannot  tell  you. 

8506.  They  had  not,  had  they  ?     I  think  you  do  know  that 


288         CONFIRMED  BY  35  HEN.  VIII.  C.   19 

Canons  had  not  the  force  of  statute  law  before  25  Henry  VIII.  ? 
— But  the  Bishops  had  power  to  enforce  them. 

8507.  Yes,  but  they  had  not  the  force  of  an  Act  of  Parlia- 
ment ? — Had  they  not  ? 

8508.  Then  what  this  Act  of  Henry  does  is,  is  it  not,  to  give 
them  exactly  the  same  position  that  they  had  before  the  making 
of  the  Act  ?    Therefore,  if  they  had  not  the  authority  of  Parlia- 
ment before  the  Act  they  did  not  get  it  by  this  Act,  did  they  ? 
They  are  to  be  still  used  and  executed  as  they  were  before  the 
making  of  this  Act  ? — Yes. 

8509.  It  gives  them  no  higher  title — I  mean  than  they  had 
before  the  Act? — But  the  title  that  they  had  before  the  Act 
was  recognised  as  a  sufficient  title. 

8510.  But  it  was  not  a  statutory  title,  was  it  ? — Perhaps  not. 

8511.  Then,  I  cannot  see  how  ceremonies  according  to  these 
Canons  could  be  said  in  1  Elizabeth,  Chapter  2,  to  have  the 
authority  of    Parliament    on    account    of    their  mention    in 
25  Henry  VIII.,  Chapter  19 ;  because  when  you  look  at  the 
mention  it  is  expressly  limited  to  giving  them  the  same  position, 
and  no  more  than  the  position  that  they  had  before  that  Act, 
which,  as  you  have  conceded,  was  not  a  statutory  title?  ' — No, 
but  I  still  must  very  respectfully  go  back  to  the  proclamation 
issued  by  Edward  VI.,  basing  itself,  as  it  does,  upon  the  Act  for 
the  administration  of   Holy  Communion   in   both  kinds,  and 

1  Surely  the  statutory  recognition  of  them  by  25  Hen.  VIII.  c.  19  gave 
them  indirectly  a  parliamentary  authority.  But  it  is  not  necessary  to  rely  on 
that  argument,  because  a  later  Act,  35  Hen.  VIII.  c.  19,  sec.  2,  renewed  the 
power  given  by  25  Hen.  VIII.  c.  19,  by  a  direct  enactment.  The  words  are : 

'  That  till  such  time  as  the  King's  Majesty  and  the  said  thirty-two  persons 
have  accomplished  and  executed  the  effects  and  contents  afore  rehearsed 
and  mentioned,  that  such  Canons,  Constitutions,  Ordinances  Synodal  or 
Provincial,  or  other  ecclesiastical  Laws  or  Jurisdiction  spiritual  as  be  yet 
accustomed  and  used  here  in  the  Church  of  England;  which  necessarily 
and  conveniently  are  requisite  to  be  put  in  use  and  execution  for  the  time, 
not  being  repugnant,  contrariant,  or  derogatory  to  the  Laws  or  Statutes  of 
the  Realm,  nor  to  the  Prerogatives  of  the  Regal  Crown  of  the  same,  or  any 
of  them  ;  shall  be  occupied,  exercised,  and  put  in  use  for  the  time  within 
this  or  other  the  King's  Majesty's  Dominions,  and  that  the  Ministers  and 
due  executors  of  them  shall  not  incur  any  damage  or  danger  for  the  due 
exercising  of  the  aforesaid  laws,  so  that  by  no  colour  or  pretence  of  them 
the  Minister  put  in  use  anything  prejudicial  or  in  contrary  of  the  regal 
power  or  laws  of  the  Realm,  anything  whatsoever  to  the  contrary  of  this 
present  Act  notwithstanding.' 

This  enactment  not  only  confirms  25  Hen.  VIII.  c.  19 :  it  also  enlarges 
it,  for  it  includes  the  ecclesiastical  Common  Law  as  well  as  the  Canons 
Synodal  and  Provincial.  It  follows  that  35  Hen.  VIII.  c.  19,  sec.  2,  alone 
gives  the  authority  of  Parliament  to  the  ritual  and  ceremonial  of  Edward's 
second  year,  including  the  Order  of  the  Communion.  But  I  have  shown  in 
the  body  of  this  work  that  it  does  not  stand  alone.  Sir  Lewis  Dibdin's 
argument  on  this  point  therefore,  I  respectfully  submit,  falls  to  the  ground. 


DILEMMA  AS  TO  SECOND  YEAE  289 

prescribing,  as  it  does,  part  of  the  Order  of  Communion  in  so 
many  words. 

8512.  That  is  going  back  on  your  first  point  ? — Yes. 

8513.  (Chairman.)  We  really  need  not  go  back  upon  that  ? 
— I  must  venture  respectfully  to  say  that  I  think  that  gives 
the  authority  of  Parliament  to  the  Order  of  the  Communion. 

8514.  (Rev.  Dr.  Gibson.)  Then  you  rely  on  your  first  head, 
not  on  your  second  or  third? — I  rely  on  my  first    head  all 
through.     I  quoted  the  others  as  auxiliary  to  it. 

8515.  (Bishop    of  Oxford.)    Do  you  make  any  difference 
between  the  expression  '  by  authority  of  Parliament,'  and  the 
expression, '  in  pursuance  of  an  Act  of  Parliament '  ? — I  should 
say  that  anything  done  in  pursuance  of  an  Act  of  Parliament 
by  competent  authorities  would  give  the  authority  of  Parlia- 
ment to  it. 

8516.  Why  do  you  insert  the  words,  '  by  competent  authori- 
ties '  ? — Because  you  must  have  competent  authorities  to  en- 
force an  Act  of  Parliament — magistrates,  and  so  on.     Every 
person  cannot  do  it. 

8517.  Why  do  you  say  '  competent  authorities '  ?    If  it  is 
the  authority  of  Parliament  why  is  the  other  authority  needed  ? 
— Well,  of  course,  an  Act  of  Parliament  does  not  enforce  itself ; 
it  must  have  ministers  to  enforce  it.    An  Act  of  Parliament  is 
dead  until    you  have  competent  authorities  to  enforce  it — 
magistrates,  and  bishops  and  the  like. 

8518.  (Chairman.)  Will  you  go  on,  please  ? — Then  I  contend 
that  if   '  by  authority  of  Parliament '  does  not   apply  to  the 
Order   of   Communion,  it   cannot  possibly  apply  to  the  First 
Prayer  Book,  and,  therefore,  it  must  be  discovered  what  it  does 
apply  to. 

8519.  (Sir  Lewis  Dibdin.)  Why  cannot  it  apply  to  the  First 
Prayer  Book  ? — Because  the  First  Prayer  Book  had  no  authority 
of  Parliament  in  the  second  year. 

8520.  (Chairman.)  Then  you  have  no  interpretation  to  give 
of  the  words  '  by  authority  of  Parliament '  unless  your  inter- 
pretation is  accepted,  which   we   have    been  arguing   about 
lately  ? — No,  I  think  there  is  nothing  that  can  meet  the  phrase 
in  my  opinion. 

8521.  (Bishop  of  Oxford.)  You  do  not  then  rely  upon  the 
belief  that  the  words  '  by  authority  of  Parliament '  refer  to  a 
general  state  of  things  and  not  to  any  particular  service  book  ? 
— No,  I  do  not  think  they  can  refer  to  that. 

8522.  You  stake  your  case  on  the  words  referring  to  the 
Order  of  Communion  ? — Yes,  or  nothing  at  all.     I  say  that  the 
words  cannot  apply  to  the  First  Prayer  Book,  and  if  the  words 
do  not  apply  to  the  '  Order  of  the  Communion '  they  cannot 
apply  at  all;  and  the  rubric  of  Elizabeth  refers  not  merely 

U 


290          PABLIAMENTAEY  USE  OP  'MADE' 

to  any  book  that  had  authority  of  Parliament  at  that  time,  but 
it  refers  to  the  usage  of  the  second  year.  Now,  as  a  matter 
of  fact,  the  First  Prayer  Book  did  not  come  into  legal  use  until 
the  lapse  of  some  months  of  the  third  year,  and  therefore 
nothing  that  was  prescribed  by  it  could  be  described  as  the 
usage  by  authority  of  Parliament  in  the  second  year  of  King 
Edward. 

8523.  (Mr.  Prothero.)  You  do  not  think  that  those  words, 
'  by  authority  of  Parliament  in  the  second   year,'  could  have 
been  applied  then  to  an  Act  that  was  passed  by  Parliament  in 
the  second  year,  although  it  did  not  receive  the  Eoyal  sanction 
until  the  third  year  ? — No,  it  could  not  have  the  authority  of 
Parliament  to  entitle  it  to  be  carried  into  force  until  it  received 
the  Eoyal  sanction. 

8524.  Then  in  that  case  how  do  you  account  for  Acts  of 
Parliament  which  are  stated  to  have  been  made,  say,  in  the 
second  and  third  years  of  a  certain  reign  ?     The  Eoyal  sanction 
must  have  been  given  on  a  specific  date,  on  a  certain  day,  and 
yet  the  Acts  are  described  as  Acts  of,   say,   the    second    and 
third  years  of  Philip  and  Mary  ? — Passed  in  the  Session  which 
began  in  the  second  year  and  ended  in  the  third  year. 

8525.  For    instance,   in   the   first    section   of    the    Act    of 
Supremacy  there  are  the  words :  '  That  the  said  Act,  made  in 
the  said  first  and  second  years  of  the  reigns  of  the  said  King 
Philip  and  Queen  Mary,  be  repealed.'     That  Act  is  referred  to 
as  an  Act  made  in  the  first  and  second  year  of  a  certain  reign  ? 
—Yes. 

8526.  The  sanction  for  that  Act  must  have  been  given  in  one 
year  or  the  other ;  no  doubt  in  the  second  year? — Yes. 

8527.  But  the  Act  is  described  as   made  in   the  first  and 
second  years? — Yes,   because  Acts  are    made    in   Parliament. 
The  King  has  no  hand  in  making  Acts  of  Parliament  at  all ; 
it  is  his  prerogative  to  accept  or  veto  them,  and  until  he  has 
accepted  them  they  have  no  legal   force,  as  I  understand  it. 
The  Acts  are  made  by  Parliament  and  that  may  extend  over 
both  years. 

8528.  (Sir  Lewis  Dibdin.)  But  the  Act  is  not  made  by  Par- 
liament ;  it  is  a  Bill  until  it  has  got  the  Eoyal  Assent.     It  is  an 
Act  made  by  Parliament  and  the  King  ? — Made  in  Parliament, 
sanctioned  by  the  King. 

8529.  (Mr.  Prothero.)  Or  rather  the  King  is  part  of  Parlia- 
ment for  that  purpose  ? — No,  certainly  not. 

8530.  As  defined  by  Sir  Thomas  Smith.     My  point  is  that 
the  reference  in  the   rubric  need  not  imply   that  the   Act  in 
question  was  sanctioned  by  the  King  in  the  second  year,  but 
that  they  would  have  described  an  Act  passed  by  the  Houses 
of  Lords  and  Commons  in  the  second  year  and  sanctioned  in 


?  MEANING  OP  'THE  SECOND  YEAE'      291 

the  third  year  as  an  Act  having  the  authority  of  Parliament 
in  the  second  year  ? — I  do  not  think  so,  because  it  had  not  the 
authority  of  Parliament  surely  until  the  King  gave  it  his  sanc- 
tion. It  had  no  authority  at  all  until  then.  The  King  might 
veto  it. 

8531.  (Chairman.)  I  do  not  think  we  need  go  on  with  that 
point.     Will  you  proceed  ? — I  think  that  is  about  all  that  I  have 
to  say  about  the  second  year,  which  was  the  point,  I  under- 
stand, on  which  the  Commission  wished  to  examine  me. 

8532.  (Sir  Lewis  Dibdin.)  I  want  to  get  quite  clear  what 
is  your  view  as  to  the  meaning  of  the  Ornaments  Eubric  sec- 
tion, 1  Elizabeth,  Chapter  2,  Section  25,  quite  apart  from  what 
can  be  said  about  it.     I  gather  that  your  view  is  that  when  the 
section  says  that  the  ornaments  '  shall  be  retained  and  be  in 
use  as  was   in  this  Church  of  England  by  the   authority  of 
Parliament  in  the  second  year  of  the  reign  of  King  Edward  VI.,' 
it  means  that  the  usage  of  Edward's  second  year  is  enjoined  ? 
— In  Elizabeth's  rubric,  yes. 

8533.  But  what  the  Statute  and  the  rubric  say  is  rather 
different,  is  it  not  ?    What  they  say  is  that  the  usage  which 
had   the   authority   of    Parliament  in   the  second  year  '  shall 
be  retained  and  be  in  use ' ;  in  other  words,   the   rubric  puts 
the  second  year  not  on  the  usage  at  all,  but  on  the  Parliament. 
It  is  the  usage,  whatever  it  was,  which  had  the  authority  of 
Parliament  in  the  second  year.     Is  not  that  the  right  way  to 
read  it  ? — I  think  not. 

8534.  The  words  of  the  rubric  are  these :  '  And  here  is  to 
be  noted  that  the  minister  at  the  time  of  the  Communion,  and 
at  all  other  times  in  his  ministration,  shall  use  such  Ornaments 
in  the  church  as  were  in  use  by  authority  of  Parliament  in 
the  second  year  of  the  reign  of  King  Edward  the  Vlth,  accord- 
ing to  the  Act  of  Parliament  set  in  the  beginning  of  this  book.' 
What  I  suggest  to  you  is  that  the  meaning  of  those  words  as 
they  are  arranged  is  not  that  the  use  is  to  be  that  of  the  second 
year,  but  the  use  by  authority  of  Parliament  in  the  second  year ; 
in  other  words,  that  'the   second  year'   is  to  be  related  to 
Parliament  and  not  to  the  use? — But  there  must  have  been 
a  second  year. 

8535.  Certainly  there  was  a  second  year,  and  there  was 
a  Parliament  in  the  second  year  ? — Yes. 

8536.  And  that  Parliament  may  have  given  authority  for 
the  use  ? — In  the  second  year. 

8537.  No,  the  use  has  nothing  to  do  with  the  second  year 
as  I  put  it  to  you,  but  the  use  is  by  authority  of  Parliament 
in  the  second  year? — That  is  to  say,  you  restrict  the  second 
year  to  the  authority  of  Parliament  and  not  to  the  use  ? 

8538.  Yes ;  is  not  that  what  the  language,  at  any  rate  primd 


292      DOES  IT  KEFER  TO  USAGE? 

facie  says ;  it  is  not  '  in  use  in  the  second  year  by  authority  of 
Parliament,'  but  it  is  '  in  use  by  authority  of  Parliament  in  the 
second  year '  ? — From  my  point  of  view  there  is  no  distinction 
because  they  had  no  authority,  by  the  first  Act  of  Uniformity, 
which  was  not  a  legal  instrument  in  the  second  year. 

8539.  We  will  consider  that,  but  first  of  all  we  want  to  get 
the  words.     The  point  of  view  I  am  putting  to  you,  which  I  do 
not  altogether  expect  you  to  accept,  but  I  want  you  to  really 
understand  my  view,  is  that  '  the  second  year '  is  not  the  use 
in  the  second  year,  but  the  use  by  authority  of  Parliament  in 
the  second  year?— I  see  your  point.     I  do  not  feel  disposed  to 
accept  it. 

8540.  I  am  going  to  ask  you  a  few  questions  with  the  object 
of  trying  to  bring  out  the  meaning  of  these  words,  '  by  authority 
of  Parliament  in  the  second  year.'     First  of  all,  the  phrase  '  by 
authority  of  Parliament '  is  an  exceedingly  common  one  in  Acts 
of  Parliament,  you  will  agree  with  me  ? — Yes. 

8541.  It  or  the  equivalent  of  it  occurs  in  every  Act  of  that 
period  at  any  rate  ? — Yes. 

8542.  They  are  all  either  '  by  authority  of  Parliament,'  or 
'  by  the  authority  aforesaid/  if  the  Parliament  has  been  men- 
tioned before  ? — Yes. 

8543.  And  '  by  authority  of  Parliament,'  I  suppose  we  shall 
agree,  means  by  authority  of  an  Act  of  Parliament  ? — Yes. 

8544.  Parliament   cannot  do   anything  except  through   an 
Act  ?— No. 

8545.  So  that  we  have  got  to  this :  that  '  by  authority  of 
Parliament '  means  '  by  authority  of  an  Act  of  Parliament '  ? 
— Yes. 

8546.  The  first  point  I  put  to  you,  then,  is  that  those  words, 
'  by  authority  of  Parliament  in  the  second  year/  are  equivalent 
to  '  by  authority  of  Parliament  holden  in  the  second  year '  ? J — 
I  see  your  point.     I  cannot  accept  it. 

8547.  I  want  to  refer  you  to  several  Statutes — I  am  afraid 
it  is  very  tedious,  but  I  think  it  is  necessary  with  a  view  of 
showing  that  that  is  the  way  in  which  the  words  are  used.    Now 
take  this  very  Statute  that  we  have  to  construe — the  Eliza- 
bethan Act  of  Uniformity — 1  Elizabeth,  Chapter  2,  Section  2. 
You  will  find  there  a  reference   that  we   all   recognise   is  a 
reference  to  the  second  Act  of  Uniformity,  that  is,  the  Act  of 
5  and  6  Edward  VI.,  Chapter  1.     In  the  second  section  you 
will  find  these  words.     It  refers  to  the  Prayer  Book  and  then 
it  says.  '  The  book  '  (that  is  the  second  Prayer  Book  of  Edward) 
'  so  authorised  by  Parliament  in  the  said  fifth  and  sixth  years 

1  If  that  were  so  the  words  would  be  '  by  authority  of  Parliament  holden 
in  the  second  and  third  years.'  That,  or  words  equivalent,  is  the  usual 
form. 


OE  PAELIAMENTAEY  AUTHOEITY  ?         293 

of  the  reign  of  King  Edward  VI.'  You  observe  that  you  have 
there  words  that  are  substantially  the  same  as  the  words  we 
have  to  construe — '  so  authorised  by  Parliament  in  the  said  fifth 
and  sixth  years  of  the  reign  of  King  Edward  VI.'  ?  l — No. 

8548.  That  word  '  so '  refers  you  back  to  the  Preamble, 
and  the  Preamble  amplifies  those  words  in  this  way :  '  Author- 
rised  by  Act  of  Parliament  holden  in  the  fifth  and  sixth  years 
of  our  said  late  sovereign  Lord  King  Edward  VI.  ? ' — Yes. 

8549.  So  that  there  you  have  in  this  very  Act  of  Parliament 
an  expression  which   I  think  you  will  agree  is  substantially 
identical  in   form  with   '  by   authority  of   Parliament    in    the 
second  year,'  and  it  is  construed  in  the  Act  itself   to   mean 
'  authorised  by  Act  of  Parliament,  holden  in  the  fifth  and  sixth 
years '  ? — Yes,  but  you  see  that  does  say  '  the  fifth  and  sixth 
years.'     It  does  not  say  '  the  second  and  third  years  '  [in  the 
Ornaments  Rubric]. 

8550.  I  will  deal  with  that,  but  if  you  will  allow  me  we 
will  take  one  point  at  a  time,  and  the  point  we  are  on  now  is 
whether  '  by  authority  of    Parliament    in    the    second   year ' 
means  '  by  authority  of  Parliament  holden  in  the  second  year.' 
Now  I  should  like  you  to  look  at  the  Act,  7  Edward  VI., 
Chapter  6,  an  Act  about  coinage.     The  first  section  mentions 
a  statute  of  Edward  IV.,  and  it  mentions  it  in  this  way  '  which 
statute  and  ordinance  before  rehearsed  by  authority  of  Parlia- 
ment holden  2  in  the  fourth  year  of  the  late  King  of  famous 
memory,  King  Henry  VII.,  was  affirmed  and  enacted  to  be  good 
and  effectual  from  the  feast  of  the  Purification  of  our  Lady  in 
the  year  1489.'     There  you  get  the  same  form  of  words  '  by 
authority  of  Parliament  in  the  fourth  year,'  but  it  means  '  by 
authority  of  Parliament  holden  in  the  fourth  year ' ;  you  have 
the  word  '  holden  '  put  in  ? — Yes. 

8551.  What  I  am  suggesting  to  you  is  that  the  words  in  the 
Ornaments  Rubric  must  be  read  consistently  with  other   Acts 
of  Parliament  to  mean  '  by  authority  of  Parliament  holden  in 
the  second  year,'  and  I  am  showing  you  instances  at  or  about 

1  That  names  the  two  years,  which  makes  all  the  difference.    Besides, 
the  Royal  Assent  was  given  in  the  sixth  year.     Therefore  the  second 
Prayer  Book  was  '  authorised '  in  the  sixth  year.    The  fact  supports  my 
argument.    But  the  Ornaments  Rubric  does  not  say  '  authorised  by  Parlia- 
ment in  the  second  and  third  years  of  the  reign  of  King  Edward  VI.' 

2  This  Parliament  began  on  January  13,  4  Hen.  VII.,  1488-9,  and  was 
on   February  23  prorogued  to   October  14,  5  Hen.  VII.,  1489.     '  Holden ' 
makes  all  the  difference.     It  means,  and  is  often  so  expressed,  '  begun  to 
be  holden.'    But  the  Ornaments  Rubric  does  not  say  '  by  the  authority  of 
Parliament  "  holden,"  or  "  begun  to  be  holden,"  in  the  second  year,'  &c. 
There  is  no  analogy  between  the  two  cases.    None  of  the  instances  adduced 
by  Sir  Lewis  Dibdin  use  the  same  form  of  words  as  the  Ornaments  Rubric 
and  the  Elizabethan  Act  of  Uniformity. 


294  APPEAL  TO  CASES 

that  time  where  other  Acts  of  Parliament  used  the  same  form 
of  words,  clearly  meaning  the  authority  of  Parliament  holden 
in  a  particular  year? — I  am  speaking  from  memory,  but  do 
they  not  all  when  they  mean  to  cover  both  years  mention  both 
years,  '  holden  in  the  second  and  third  years  '  ? 

8552.  If  you  will  forgive  me  for  saying  so,  for  this  point  I  do 
not  think  it  has  any  bearing.     The  one  point  that  we  are  now 
upon  is  whether  the  words  'by  authority   of  Parliament'  if 
you  like  '  in  the   second  and  third  years  '  do    not   mean    by 
1  authority  of  Parliament  holden  in  the  second  and  third  years ' ; 
that  it  is  an  elliptical  expression  and  that  '  holden  '  is  what  it 
meant.     Now  let  me  ask  you  to  look  at  the  next  Act,  7  Ed- 
ward VI.,  Chapter  2,  Section  1,  an  Act  about  Augmentations 
— an  Act  I  think  with  which  you  are  familiar.     You  get  in  the 
preamble  of  that  '  Whereas  in  the  27th  year  of  the  late  King  of 
famous  memory,  King  Henry  VIII.,  father  to  the  King's  majesty, 
that  now  is  there  was  ordained,  made,  established,  and  enacted 
by  the  authority  of  Parliament." l     There  you  get  the  same 
thing  only  put  the  other  way ;  you  get  the  words  '  the  authority 
of  Parliament'  with  reference  to  a   particular  year,  but  the 
meaning  of  the  reference  is  the  holding  of  a  Parliament  in  that 
year? — Yes  [and  the  giving  of  the  Royal  Assent  in  that  year}. 

8553.  Again  there  is  a  very  important  Act  on  this  question, 
on  another  part  of  it,  namely,  3  and  4  Edward  VI.  Chapter  14, 
Section  1,  refers  to  the  Attainder  Act  of  Thomas  Lord  Seymour, 
of  Sudeley,  and   the   Preamble   there   is  '  Whereas  the   said 
Thomas  Lord  Seymour  by  authority  of  your  Highness's  Court 
of  Parliament  holden  at  Westminster  in  the  second  year   of 
your  most  noble  reign ' — that  is  this  very  year.     There  again 
you  get  the  same  form  of  expression  '  authority  of  Parliament 
in  the  second  year,'  but  it  means  authority  of  Parliament  holden 
in  the  second  year  ?  2 — It  puts  '  holden '  in. 

1  This  reference  supports  my  view.    For  the  Eoyal  Assent  was  given  in 
that  year,  and  of  course  '  authorised '  the  Act.    But  the  Eoyal  Assent  was 
not  given  to  the  first  Act  of  Uniformity  in  Edward's  second  year. 

2  The  answer  to  this  is  twofold.     (1)  '  By  authority  of  ...  Parliament 
holden  .  .  .  in  the  second  year  '  means  '  by  authority  of  Parliament  which 
began  to  sit  in  the  second  year."     But  it  had  no  '  authority '  in  the  second 
year :  that  is  my  point.     (2)  The  Bill  of  Attainder  of  Sir  Thomas  Seymour 
was  read  in  the  Lords  the  first  time  on  February  25  of  the  third  year,  and 
was  read  a  second  and  third  time  on  the  26th  and  27th.     The  Bill  passed 
the  Commons  on  March  5,  and  received  the  Royal  Assent,  with  a  batch  of 
other  Bills,  including  the  Act  of  Uniformity,  on  March  14.     The  Act  of 
Attainder  therefore  belongs  altogether  to  the  third  year  of  Edward  VI.   It  had 
no  authority  at  all — for  it  did  not  begin  to  exist — in  the  second  year.     The 
true  and  legal  account  of  the  matter  is  that  the  Bill  received  authority  by 
means  of  the  Royal  Assent  on  the  last  day  of  the  Session  of  the  Parliament 
which  began  in  the  second  year  of  Edward  and  ended  on  March  14  of  the 
third  year.    There  is  no  analogy  whatever  between  this  and  the  Ornaments 
Rubric  together  with  the  Ornaments  clause  of  Elizabeth's  Act  of  Uniformity. 


APPEAL  TO  CASES  295 

8554.  Yes,  that  is  so.     Now  the  next  is  an  Act  of  5  and 
6  Edward  VI.,  Chapter  11,  which  is  an  Act  to  do  with  the 
punishment  of  divers  treasons;  there  you  get  that  something 
was  limited,  it  does  not  matter  what,  '  by  authority  of  Parlia- 
ment holden  in  the  35th  year  of  Henry  VIII.'  ?  * — But  I  think 
the  word  '  holden '  makes  a  great  difference. 

8555.  What  difference  ? — The  difference  being  in  my  point 
of  view  that  it  refers  there  to  the  authority  of  Parliament  which 
was  holden  in  that  year ;  but  here  it  does  not  say '  which  was 
holden  in  that  year  '  but  '  by  authority  of  Parliament  in  the 
second  year  of  King  Edward  VI.' 

8556.  And  what  I  suggest  to  you  is  that  it  is  impossible  on 
any  reasonable  construction  to  give  one  meaning  to  the  words 
'  by  authority  of  Parliament  in  the  second  year '  and  to  give 
another  meaning  to  the  words  '  by  the  authority  of  Parliament 
holden  in  the  second  year '  ? — I  do  not  know.     I  am  not  sure 
that  I  should  be  prepared  to  accept  that. 

8557.  Is  it  your  view  that  while  the  one  means  one  thing 
the    other    means   something  else  ? — I    think    that   '  holden  ' 
restricts  the  meaning. 

8558.  No  doubt  it  makes  it  clearer,  I  quite  agree  with  you ; 
but  do  you  really   suggest  that   it  means   something  else   if 
'  holden '  is  not  there  ? — Primd  facie  I  should  say  that  it 
does. 

8559.  That  it  means  something  else  ? — That  when  '  holden  ' 
is  not  there  it  refers  to  the  passing  of  the  Act  and  not  to  the 
Parliament  in  which  it  was  passed.    It  refers  to  the  legality 
of  the  Act — to  the  passing. 

8560.  (Sir  Edward  Clarke.)  You  mean  to  the  coming  in  force 
of  the  Act  ? — Yes,  to  the  coming  in  force  of  the  Act  and  not  to 
the  Parliament  in  which  it  took  place. 

8561.  (Sir  Lewis  Dibdin.)  But  is  there  anything  in  the  form 
of  those  words,  I  put  it  to  you  as  a  matter  of  reasonable  pro- 
bability, to  suggest  that  'in  the   second  year' — taking  what 
we  have  to  construe  '  by  the  authority  of  Parliament  in  the 
second  year ' — is  something  different  from  what  you  get  in  a 
long  series  of  statutes  of  which  I  have  quoted  just  a  very  few 
where  you  have  exactly  the  same  form  of  expression  only  with 
the  word  '  holden  '  put  in  ? — Speaking  from  recollection  when 
Parliament  covered  more  than  one  year  it  is  so  stated  in  the 

1  The  same  answer  applies  to  Sir  Lewis  Dibdin's  next  example.  The 
Statutes  of  that  year  are  entitled,  in  the  Statutes  of  the  Realm,  '  Statutes 
made  in  the  Session  of  Parliament  holden  by  prorogation  at  Westminster 
on  the  fourteenth  day  of  January  in  the  thirty-fifth  year  of  the  reign  of 
K.  Henry  VIII.'  It  follows,  of  course,  that  the  Statute  in  question  received 
the  authority  of  Parliament  in  the  year  named  because  it  was  both  '  made ' 
and  received  the  Royal  Assent  in  that  year. 


296  APPEAL  TO  CASES 

Act '  by  authority  of  Parliament  holden  in  the  second  and  third 
years  '  or  '  in  the  third  and  fourth  years.' 

8562.  I  will  deal  with  that.     I  want,  if  I  may  say  so,  to 
deal  with  one  point  at  a  time,  and  the  point  I  am  on  now, 
which  I  rather  hoped  I  should  have  had  your  assent  to,  was 
that  '  by  the  authority  of  Parliament  in  the  second  year  '  must 
as  a  matter  of  reasonable  construction  mean  the  same  as  it 
means  in  all  the  other  statutes  in  which  you  get  either  the  same 
words  1  or  the  same  words  with  '  holden.'     That  put  in  word, 
of  course,  makes  it  absolutely  clear  beyond  dispute,  but,  when 
you  do  not  have  that  word,  is  it  not  the  reasonable  construc- 
tion to  say  that  it  means  the  same  thing  ? — I  am  not  quite 
prepared  to  assent  to  that.     I  think  if  it  referred  to  an  Act 
passed  in  a  certain   Parliament  it  would  mention  the  period 
during  which  the  Parliament  sat  if  it  referred  to  the  particular 
Parliament  and  not  to  the  specific  Act. 

8563.  (Mr.  Talbot.)  May  I  try  to  clear  it  up  ?     I  thought 
I  had  grasped  what  your  point  was.     Do   you  contend   that 
'  by  authority  of  Parliament '  in  a  certain  year  means  that  the 
Act  of  Parliament  came  into  force  in  that  year  ? — Yes,  I  mean 
that  it  came  into  force. 

8564.  Supposing,  for  instance,  that  a  law  is  passed  in  this 
year  in  which  a  provision  is  made  that  it  shall  come  into  force 
in  a  certain  future  year,  then  you  think  those  words  refer  to 
that  future  year  in  which  it  shall  come  into  force  ? — No,  not 
necessarily.     I  mean  that  when  you  have  an  Act  described  as 
passed  in  a  certain  Parliament  then,  so  far  as  my  recollection 
goes,  it  refers   to  the  period  during   which   that    Parliament 
existed — as,  for  instance,  '  the  second  and  third  years.' 

8565.  But  Parliament  exists  throughout  the  six  or  seven  years 
of  its  life  ? — Yes,  but  I  mean  the  period  during  which  the  Act 
was  in  process  of  passing — passed  in  the  second  year  and  third 
year.     Now  the  Act  of  Uniformity  as  I  contend  covered  the 
second  and  third  years. 

8566.  (Chairman.)  That  is  really  another  point  ? — Hardly. 
My  contention  is  that '  the  second  year '  cannot  refer  to  an  Act 
which  did  not  become  law  till  the  third  year. 

8567.  (Sir  Lewis  Dibdin.)  I  have  taken  you  through  a  great 
number  of  Acts  and  I  could  take  you  through  a  much  larger 
number  where  you  get  what  I  call  the  same  expression  with 
more  or  less  variation,  with  the  verb  put  in,  and  I  suggest  to 
you  that  whether  the  verb  is  put  in  or  not  the  meaning  must 
be  the  same.     I  have  dealt  with  that  and  I  shall  not  deal  with 
it  again.     I  go  now  to  what  is  the  point  I  think  that  is  upper- 
most in  your  mind,  namely,  that  assuming  that '  by  authority 

1  '  The  same  words '  do  not  occur  in  any  of  Sir  Lewis  Dibdin's  instances. 


APPEAL  TO  CASES  297 

of  Parliament  in  the  second  year '  does  mean  the  authority  of 
an  Act  of  Parliament  holden  in  the  second  year  ? — I  must  re- 
serve my  point  that  I  cannot  accept  that  interpretation  as  at 
present  advised. 

8568.  It  is  quite  clear  that  you  do  not  accept  it,  but  I  sub- 
mit to  you  that  I  have  given  you  so  many  illustrations  of  it  that 
though  you  do  not  accept  it,  it  is,  I  suggest,  established  that 
'  by  authority  of  Parliament  in  the  second  year '  means  that  the 
Parliament  is  in  the  second  year,  because  that  is  the  form  of 
expression  used  in  so  many  different  Statutes  ? — But  is  it  used 
when  the  session  is  in  more  than  one  year  ? 

8569.  You  are  on  a  different  point.     What  I  mean  is,  that 
whatever  is  the  meaning  of  the  second  year,  the  second  year 
is   something  or  other  that  relates  to  the  Parliament,  and  I 
suggest  to  you  that  that  is  clear  from  all  the  extracts  I  have 
given  you  that  it  relates  to  action  taken  by  authority  of  Parlia- 
ment ? — No,  I  do  not  accept  that. 

8570.  Then  I  must  leave  it.     Now  the  next  point  that  I  am 
putting  to  you  is  that  Acts  when  referred  to  in  other  Statutes 
are  generally  cited  as  belonging  to  the  year  in  which  the  first 
day  of  the  session  occurred ;    by  Acts,  I  mean,   Acts  of  that 
period.     Do  you  follow  ? — Yes,  until  1792. 

8571.  They  were  generally  cited  as  belonging  to  the  year 
in  which  the  first  day  of  the  session  occurred  ? — Yes. 

8572.  There  is  no  doubt  about  that,  I  think,  is  there  ? — No, 
there  are  exceptions  of  course.     That  refers  to  Acts  for  which 
no  specific  date  is  given  for  the  commencement  of  them. 

8573.  No,  it  refers  to  all  Acts.    What  you  are  speaking  of  is 
the  reason  for  it,  but  the  rule  was  the  general  rule,  applicable 
to  all  Acts  as  I  suggest  to  you.     Let  me  give  it  you  from  Hard- 
castle,  who  is  an  authority  on  the  interpretation  of  Statutes, 
at  page  57  :    '  From  the  reign  of  Edward  II.  it  has  been  usual 
to  cite  by  reference  to  the  regnal  year  in  which  the  Session  of 
Parliament  began,  it  being  the  Common  Law  rule  that  an  Act 
comes  into  force  as  of  the  first  day  of  the  Session  in  which  it 
was  passed.'    That  is  the  general  rule  ? — Yes,  the  general  rule. 

8574.  Now  there  are  a  great  many  illustrations  of  that.     I 
really  do  not  know  whether  it  is  necessary  to  take  you  through 
them.     I  should  like  to  refer  you  to   an  Act  of  1  Mary,  the 
third  Statute,  chapter  seven.     It  is  about  clothmaking,  and  you 
get  in  the  preamble  these  words :  '  Till  now  of  late  in  the  fifth 
year  of  the  reign  of  our  late  Sovereign  King  Edward  VI.,  that 
a  Statute  was  made,'  etc.     A  Statute  made,  you  see,  in  the  fifth 
year  of  our  late  Sovereign  King  Edward  VI.  ? — Yes. 

8575.  That  refers  to  an  Act  of  the  5  and  6  Edward  VI., 
chapter  eight  ? — Yes. 

8576.  You  see  you  have  there  just  what  you  were  asking 


298  APPEAL  TO  CASES 

me  for,  what  you  were  challenging  just  now ;  you  have  a 
reference  to  a  Statute  by  the  first  of  two  years,  although  the 
reference  is  to  an  Act  the  title  of  which  covers  two  years,  the 
fifth  and  sixth  ? l — Yes,  it  refers  to  that  one. 

8577.  As  made  '  in  the  fifth  year  of  our  late  Sovereign  King 
Edward  VI.'  ?— Yes. 

8578.  That  Act  I  think  you  will  probably  agree  could  not 
have  had  the  Eoyal  Assent  until  the  sixth  year.     Let  me  give 
you  the  dates.     The  session  began  on  the  23rd  January,  accord- 
ing to  some  authorities  on  the  30th,  but  I  take  the  23rd  as 
being  the  least  favourable  for  the  contention  I  am  putting  to 
you,  the  23rd  January,  1552,  and  Edward's  fifth  year  ended 
on   the  27th  January,  1552.      Now,  I   think,  you  will   agree 
that  it  was  so  unlikely  as  to  be  practically  impossible  that  in 
four  days  the  Bill  could  have  passed  through  both  Houses  of 
Parliament  and  had  the  Eoyal  Assent  ? — Yes. 

8579.  Then  it  could  not  have  had  the  Eoyal  Assent  before 
the  sixth  year  ? — No. 

8580.  Yet  you  see  it  is  referred  to  in  the  Act  of  1  Mary  which 
I  have  quoted  as  an  Act  made  in  the  fifth  year  ? — Yes,  but  that 
is  quite  in  agreement  with  my  view. 

8581.  Oh,  is  it? — Yes.     I  hold  that  all  Acts  are  made  by 
Parliament,  but  do  not  become  legal  until  they  get  the  Eoyal 
sanction. 

8582.  You  draw  a  distinction  between  made  and  passed ; 
I  think  that  is  your  point  ? — I  find  it  in  the  Journals  of  the 
House  of  Lords. 

8583.  I  should  like  to  ask  you  a  few  questions  about  that 
later,  but  I  do  not  think  it  arises  upon  this  point.     Your  point 
is — I  do  not  know  whether  we  have  made  it  quite  clear  between 
us — that  when  an  Act  is  spoken  of  as  having  been  made  in  the 
fifth  year,  it  does  not  mean  that  it  has  become  an  Act  although 
it  calls  it  an  Act,  but  that  it  was  a  Bill  which  had  passed 
through  the  Houses  of  Parliament  and  had  not  yet  got  the 
Eoyal  Assent?— Yes. 

8584.  Do  you  think  even  so  that  this  Bill  was  likely  to  have 
passed  through  both  Houses  of  Parliament  and  been  read  three 
times  in  each   in  the  four  days  between  the   23rd  and   27th 

1  An  examination  of  the  Journals  of  Parliament  shows  that  no  reliance 
can  be  placed  on  this  example.  The  Bill  was  introduced  on  January  25, 
and  was  then  '  committed  to  Mr.  Secretary  Petre.'  It  was  '  redelivered 
primo  Feb.  1.  Nova.  For  Clothiers  to  dwell  in  Towns  after  Anno 
Domini  1556.'  Later  we  have :  '  Feb.  20.  Bill  for  Clothiers  to  dwell 
in  Towns — Mr.  S.  Peter."  The  record  is  so  scanty  and  confused  that  no 
argument,  as  it  seems  to  me,  can  be  built  upon  it.  The  first  Bill  was 
withdrawn  and  a  fresh  Bill  was  brought  in.  It  is  impossible  to  trace  the 
stages  of  it.  It  was  '  made '  and  remade.  I  repudiate  any  inference  drawn 
from  the  mere  use  of  the  word  '  made.' 


APPEAL  TO  CASES  299 

January  ? — No,  but  supposing  it  did  not,  how  would  that  affect 
my  argument  ? 

8585.  But  if  it  had  not  passed  the  Houses  of  Parliament  it 
certainly  was  not  made,  was  it  ? — But  I  understand  you  to  say 
that  it  was  possible  to  pass  the  Houses  of  Parliament  but  not 
to  receive  the  Eoyal  Assent. 

8586.  I  do  not  say  that  it  was  or  was  not,  but  I  ask  whether 
you  suggest  that  in  the  four  days  between  the  23rd  and  the 
27th  January  this  Bill  passed  through  Parliament  although  it 
had  not  received  the  Eoyal  Assent  ? — When  was  it  introduced 
into  Parliament  ? 

8587.  The  session  began  on  the  23rd  so  that  it  could  not 
have  been  introduced  prior  to  that  ? — And  when  did  the  session 
end? 

8588.  I  do  not  know  when  the  session  ended,  but  the  fifth 
year  ended  on  the  27th  January  four  days  later? — Surely  it 
might  easily  pass  Parliament.     You  have  several  Bills  passing 
Parliament  in  one  day. 

8589.  It  is  not  very  common,  is  it? — No.     The  Pardons 
clause  in  the  Act  of  Uniformity  I  think  passed  in  one  day. 

8590.  Would  that  be  your  explanation  ;  that  that  Bill  passed 
through  Parliament  during  the  four  days  between  the  23rd  and 
the  27th  ? — I  do  not  commit  myself  to  that.     I  think  it  might 
have  done  so.    But  my  contention  is  that '  made '  is  so  vague 
a  term  as  to  make  it  impossible  to  rely  upon  it  in  a  legal  sense ; 
it  is  used  very  vaguely.     I  think  it  is  applied  generally  to  the 
work  of  Parliament  before  it  has  received  the  Eoyal  Assent. 

8591.  Then  why  should  it  not  mean  that  in  the  Ornaments 
Eubric  ?     There  is  no  word  at  all  there.     If  you  had  the  word 
'  made '  then  you  would  say  it  meant  that.     Is  it  not  easier  still 
to  suppose  that  it  means  it  without  any  word  ? — No,  I  say  that 
you  cannot  rely  upon  the  word  '  made  '   alone,  because  it   is 
Parliament   I  understand  which  makes  the  Acts.     The  King 
has  no  hand  in  making  them.     He  rejects  or  accepts  them. 

8592.  Then  why  should  not  the  words  in  the  Ornaments 
Eubric  '  by  authority  of  Parliament  in  the  second  year '  mean 
the  same  thing  as  an  Act  made,  whatever  it  may  be  ?    I  am 
taking  your  view  that  it  is  something  vague  and  does  not  mean 
necessarily  a  completed  statute.    Whatever  it  does  mean,  why 
should  not  '  the  authority  of  Parliament  in  the  second  year ' 
mean  the  same  thing  ? — Because  it  could  not  have  any  sanction 
of  Parliament  until  it  got  the  Eoyal  Assent.     It  could  not  have 
the  authority  of   Parliament   merely    because  it   is   made   by 
Parliament  until  it  has  got  the  Eoyal  Assent. 

8593.  (Chairman.)  Is  not  this  rather  playing  with  words? 
Surely  the  Bill  is  made  by  Parliament,  it  never  becomes  an  Act 
until  it  gets  the  Eoyal  Assent.    Therefore  you  cannot  say  that 


300  NONE  OF  THE  CASES  EELEVANT 

Parliament  makes  the  Act  ? — I  understand  '  made '  in  the  sense 
of  compiling,  composing,  or  drawing  up  ;  and  when  the  thing  is 
done  surely  you  can  speak  of  the  Act  as  having  been  made  by 
Parliament. 

8594.  (Sir  Lewis  Dibdin.)  I  want  to   ask  you  about  that. 
Can  you  give  us  any  instances,  even  a  few,  where  '  made '  with 
reference  to  an  Act  of  Parliament  is  used  in  the  Statute  Book 
in  the  sense  you  give  to  it  ?    I  do  not  mean  controversial  cases, 
but  cases  where  it  is  clearly  used  not  in  the  sense  in  which  we 
have  always  understood  it  as  an  Act  passed,  but  in  some  lesser 
sense  ? — Various  persons  have  quoted,  I  think  you  yourself  have 
quoted,  the  Diary  of  Edward  VI.,  where  '  made '  is  used  in  the 
sense  for  which  I  am  contending. 

8595.  That  is  not  an  Act  of  Parliament  ? — No,  but  it  has  been 
quoted. 

8596.  I  am  asking  you  for  instances  where  '  made  '  has  the 
meaning  which  you   allege  it   has,  anywhere  in  the   Statute 
Book  ? — I  do  not  know  that  it  would  be  very  easy  to  find  one 
more  precisely.1 

8597.  I  do  not  think  it  would  at  all.     I  think  it  would  be 
very  difficult.     Now  let  me  point  out  to  you  on  the  other  side 
that  in  this  very  session  that  we  are  dealing  with,  namely,  in 
the  year  of  the  second  Act  of   Uniformity,  the  5th   and   6th 
Edward  VI.,  if  you  go  through  the  Statutes  passed  in  that  year 
you  will  find  ten  in  which  other  Statutes  are  referred  to,  and 
they  are  always  referred  to  without  any  exception  at  all  as  '  the 
Act  made '  so  and  so  ? — Yes. 

8598.  You  cannot  surely  suppose  that  those  are  all  references 
to  Bills  in  Parliament  which  had  not  really  become  Acts,  and 
were  in   some  inchoate  shape? — But   my  contention  is  that 
'  made '  always  applied  to  the  action  of  Parliament. 

8599.  I  know,  but  not  necessarily  an  Act  completed,  as  I 
understand  ? — Yes. 

8600.  But  I  point  out  to  you  that  the  invariable  way  of 

1  Sir  L.  Dibdin's  question  ignores  my  point.  I  contend  that  '  made  ' 
with  reference  to  an  Act  of  Parliament  is  used  in  the  Statute  Book  always 
in  the  sense  I  give  to  it.  The  crucial  words  are  '  by  authority,'  and  none  of 
the  instances  appealed  to  by  my  cross-examiners  is  identical  with  the  Orna- 
ments Rubric  and  parallel  phrase  in  the  Elizabethan  Act  of  Uniformity, 
where  the  word  '  made '  is  not  used  at  all.  The  whole  stress  is  on  '  the 
authority  of  Parliament,'  which  did  not  exist  for  the  first  Act  of  Uni- 
formity till  the  third  year.  Every  Act  has  been  '  made '  in  Parliament, 
and  when  the  process  of  making  extends  over  one  year  it  is  said  to  be 
of  both  years,  as  the  first  Act  of  Uniformity,  which  is  always  entitled 
'  2  and  3  Edward  VI.'  If  Sir  Lewis  Dibdin's  contention  were  tenable  the 
Eubric  would  have  said  '  by  authority  of  Parliament  in  the  second  and  third 
years  of  Edward  VI.'  The  Parliament  in  question  could  give  no  authority 
at  all  in  the  second  year  to  Bills  which  did  not  receive  the  Royal  assent — 
i.e.  did  not  become  Acts— till  the  third  year. 


IEEELEVANT  EXAMPLES  301 

referring  to  an  Act  of  Parliament  in  another  statute  is  by 
saying  '  An  Act  made '  so  and  so.  I  should  have  thought  there 
could  have  been  no  doubt  about  it  ? — But  are  you  not  passing 
over  the  point,  when  you  contend  that  Acts,  as  a  general  rule, 
take  their  date  from  the  first  day  of  the  session  of  the  Parliament 
that  passed  them — but  there  were  exceptions,  namely,  in  the 
case  of  Acts  for  the  commencement  of  which  a  specific  date  was 
assigned  ? 

8601.  I  do  not  think  so.     I  want  to  ask  you  about  that. 
Are  we  not  confusing  two  things  that  differ  ?     The  Act  comes 
into  operation  from  the  first  day  of  the  session  unless  a  specific 
date  was  mentioned  in  the  Act,  and  I  am  aware  that  you  say 
that  there  was  an  express  date  in  the  Act  of  Uniformity,  and 
I  will  deal  with  that.     But  this  is  a  different  point ;  this   is 
whether  the  mode  of  citation  of  an  Act  was  not  governed  by 
the  first  day  of  the  session  whenever  it  came  into  operation. 
You  see  that  is  a  different  thing.     Let  me  illustrate  it  by  any 
modern   Statute.      The    Eeal    Property    Limitation    Act,    for 
example,  which,  I  daresay,  you  know  very  well,  was  passed  in 
the  year  1874,  and  it  did  not  come  into  operation   until  the 
year  1879?— Yes. 

8602.  But  that  Act  is  not  cited  as  being  of  the  year  1879, 
but  as  being  of  the  year  1874? — Yes,  in  which  it  was  passed. 

8603.  But  do  you  not  see  that,  on  the  view  which  I  think 
you  are  putting,  you  would  say  that  the  fact  that  the  Act  did 
not  come  into  operation  until    1879  makes  it  inaccurate  to 
speak  about  it  as  an  Act  of  1874  ? — No,  not  necessarily. 

8604.  But  is  not  that  the   argument?    'By   authority  of 
Parliament  in  the  second  year '  I  suggest  means  '  by  authority 
of  an  Act  of  Parliament  belonging  to  the  second  year '  in  the 
sense  that  the  first  day  of  the  session  was  in  the  second  year. 
You  say  no,  because  that  Act  did  not  come  into  operation  until 
the  third  year,  and  therefore  it  ought  to  be  called  an  Act  of  the 
third  year.1   I  want  to  refer  you  to  another  Act,  the  35  Elizabeth, 
chapter  1,  about  Sectaries,  where  you  get  these  words  in  the 
eighth  section,  'in  such   manner  and  form  as  is  limited  and 
appointed  in  the  Statute  made  in  the  twenty-eighth  year  of  Her 
Majesty's  reign  touching  recusants.'     You  get  there,  you  see,  a 
Statute  made  in  the  twenty-eighth  year? — Yes. 

8605.  That  refers  to  29  Elizabeth,  chapter  6.    Although  it 
is  spoken  of  as  in  the  twenty-eighth  year,  it  is  29  Elizabeth, 
chapter  6.     Now  the  session  began  early  in  the  year ;  it  began 
in  the  twenty-eighth  year,  but  it  did  not  meet  for  legislative 

1  That  is  not  my  point  at  all.  It  does  not  matter  to  my  argument  when 
the  Act '  came  into  operation.'  The  question  is  when  it  became  law — i.e. 
received  the  Boyal  assent.  I  found  it  extremely  hard  to  keep  my  examiners 
strictly  to  my  point :  perhaps  through  my  own  fault. 


302  IRBELEVANT  EXAMPLES 

purposes  until  the  15th  February,  1587,  which  is  in  the  twenty- 
ninth  year  ? — Yes. 

8606.  So   that   the  whole  of  the  carriage  of  the  Bill — the 
Eoyal   Assent   and   the  whole   carriage   of    that  Bill  through 
Parliament — took  place  in  the  twenty-ninth  year? — Yes. 

8607.  And  yet  that  is  referred  to  as  a  Statute  made  in  the 
twenty-eighth  year,  because  the  first  day  of  the  session  was  in 
the  twenty-eighth  year  ?     Yes,  quite  so.1 

8608.  That  you  would  admit  to  be  quite  right  ? — Yes. 

8609.  And  you  would  say  that  the  reason  why  that  did  not 
apply  to  the  Act  of  Uniformity  was  because  there  is  a  special 
day  mentioned  for  the  Act  to  begin  ? — Yes. 

8610.  So  that  you  put  it  really  upon  that  point  ? — Yes,  I  do. 

8611.  Apart  from  that,  you  agree  that  the  Act  of  Uniformity 
is  properly  referred  to  as  belonging  to  the  second  year  ? — Yes, 
as  '  made '  in  the  second  year. 

8612.  Now    I    want   to   refer  you   on   that   to  an    Act   of 
7  Edward  VI.,  chapter  7.     I  ought  to  preface  this  by  saying 
that  it  is  a  very  curious  Act,  because  it  is  a  very  unusual  thing 
to  get  an  Act  of  Parliament  which  quite  reproduces  the  state 
of  things  in  the  Act  of  Uniformity,  where  you  have   an   Act 
which  is  to  come  into  operation,  at  any  rate,  the  effective  part 
of  which  is  to  come  into  operation  at  a  subsequent  date,  and 
yet  is  referred  to  in  another  Act  of  Parliament.     You  have  two 
things  to  find  in  the  illustration.     First,  an  Act  referred  to  in 
another  Act  of  Parliament,  and  then  that  Act  so  referred  to  as 
passed  being  an  Act  that  had  to  come  into  operation  at  some 
subsequent  date.     I  do  not  know  whether  your  attention  has 
been  directed  to  it,  but  this  is  what  we  find.     This  Act,  7  Ed- 
ward VI.,  chapter  7,  had  to  do  with  the  Assise  of  Fuel  and 
it  says  this :  '  Whereas  the  assise  of  fuel  appointed  and  assised 
by  an  Act  of  Parliament  made  at  Westminster  the  xxij.  day  of 
January  in  the  xxxiv.  year  of  the  reign  of  our  late  Sovereign 
Lord  King  Henry  the  Eighth '  so  and  so.     You  see  the  refer- 
ence is  '  An  Act  of  Parliament  made  at  Westminster  the  xxij. 
day  of  January  in  the  xxxiv.  year  '  ? — Yes. 

8613.  That  refers  to  an  Act  of  34  and  35  Henry  VIII., 
chapter  3,  and  you  will  see  from  the  first  section  of  that  Act 
that  it  did  not  come   into  operation  until   '  the   Feast  of  the 
Purification  of  our  Blessed  Lady  that  shall  be  in  the  year  of 
our  Lord  1543.' 2    That  would  be  the  2nd  February,  1543,  in 

1  And  the  reason  is  that  no  specific  date  is  fixed  for  the  coming  of  that 
Act  into  operation,  which  is  not  the  case,  as  I  contend,  with  the  first  Act  of 
Uniformity. 

2  This  again  is  totally  irrelevant  to  my  argument,  which  has  nothing  to 
do  with  the  date  on  which  the  Act  came  into  operation.    The  first  Act  of 
Uniformity  did  not  come  into  operation  on  March  14  of  the  third  year,  but 


IEEELEVANT  EXAMPLES  303 

their  way  of  looking  at  things,  which  would  be  according  to  our 
computation  the  2nd  February,  1544 — it  would  be  in  the  year 
1543-44?— Yes. 

8614.  So  that  it  came  into  operation  on  the  2nd  day  of 
February,  1544,  in  the  35th  year  ? — Yes. 

8615.  But  it  is  referred  to  as  an  Act  of  the  34th  year ;  there- 
fore it  seems  to  me  that  that  is  an  exact  illustration  of  your 
view  of  the  Act  of  Uniformity,  which  I  will  deal  with  directly  : 
that  assuming  that  the  Act  of  Uniformity  did  not  come  into 
operation  until  June  of  the  third  year,  it  would  nevertheless  be 
right  to  refer  to  the  Act  of  Uniformity  as  an  Act  of  the  second 
year,  because  the  first  day  of  the  session  in  which  the  Act  of 
Uniformity  was  passed  was  in  the  second  year  ?    Do  you  follow 
me  ? — Yes. 

8616.  Have  you  anything  to  say  to  that  illustration  ? — Well, 
I  must  repeat  that  I  cannot  really  lay  much  stress  upon  the 
word  '  made '  at  all,  because  all  Acts  are  '  made  in  Parliament.' 

8617.  That  is  all  you  have  to  say  upon  it  ? — Yes. 

8618.  Now  I  want  to  draw  your  attention  to  four  Acts  of 
Parliament,  all  of  which  refer  to  Acts  of  the  Session  2  and  3 
Edward  VI.,  chapter  18,  as  having  been  made  in  the  second 
year.     The  first,  is  the  3rd  and  4th  Edward  VI.,  chapter  14 ; 
that  is  one  I  have  already  drawn  your  attention  to,  which  refers 
to  the  Act  of  Attainder  of  Thomas  Lord  Seymour  of  Sudeley ; 
then,  secondly,  the  Act  of  5th  and  6th  Edward  VI.,  that  is  the 
Act  of  Uniformity.     That,  I  think  you  will  agree,  is  of  very  great 
importance,  because  it  seems  to  me  absolutely  decisive,  if  I  may 
say  so.     In  the  fourth  section  of  that  Act  5  and  6  Edward  VI., 
chapter  1,  it  says :  '  As  by  the  Act  of  Parliament  made  in  the 
second  year  of  the  King's  Majesty's  reign  was  ordained,  limited,' 
and  so  on,  referring  to  the  first  Act  of  Uniformity.     There  you 
have  the  actual  authority  of  Parliament  itself  for  the  reading  of 
the  Ornaments  Eubric  which  I  am  suggesting  to  you — that  the 
first  Act  of  Uniformity  was  an  Act  made  in  the  second  year, 
have  you  not  ? — But  I  do  not  dispute  that. 

8619.  Well,  you  dispute  it,  do  you  not,  subject  to  the  word 
'  made '  ? — I  admit  that  it  was  made  in  the  second  year,  because 
it  passed  through  Parliament  in  the  second  year,  but  it  had  no 
legal  force  till  it  received  the  Eoyal  Assent  on  the  14th  March 
of  the  third  year. 

8620.  But  then  I  do  not  understand  why,  if  that  is  your 
view,  the  words  '  authority  of  Parliament  in  the  second  year ' 
should  not  mean  what  you  say  the  words  I  have  quoted  from 
the  second  Act  of  Uniformity  mean  ? — I  hold  that  an  Act  is 

it  became  law,  it  received  '  the  authority  of  Parliament '  on  March  14. 
That  is  the  point. 


304        ONGEE  AND  GEEENSTEED  STATUTE 

made  by  Parliament,  and  that  it  does  not  have  any  legal  exist- 
ence  until  it  receives  the  Eoyal  Assent. 

8621.  (Sir  F.  H.  Jeune.)  Oh  no. 

8622.  (Sir  Lewis  Dibdin.)     Subject  to  that  point,  do   you 
agree  with  me  that  this  reference  to  the  first  Act  of  Uniformity 
in  the  second  Act  of  Uniformity  is  conclusive,  because  it  says, 
'  as  by  the  Act  of  Parliament  made  in  the  second  year  of  the 
King's  Majesty's  reign  was  ordained,  limited,'  and  so  on.     Put 
'  made '  out  of  it.     Assuming  for  a  moment  that  you  are  wrong 
about    that,   would  not  that    show  that  the  expression    'by 
authority  of  Parliament  in  the  second  year '  properly  referred 
to  the  first  Act  of  Uniformity  ? — But  then   that   is   assuming 
everything. 

8623.  That  is  an  answer  and  a  very  fair  answer  ;  you  put  it 
on  that.     Now  there  are  two  other  statutes  (1  Mary,  stat.  3, 
ch.  10 ;  1  Eliz.,  ch.  9),  both  of  which  refer  to  statutes  of  the 
second  year  as  having  been   made  in  the  second  year.1     The 
third   one   is   the  Onger   and   Greensteed   statute  of  1  Mary, 
Statute  3,  chapter   10,  which  refers  really  identically    in   the 
same  form  as  the  Ornaments  Eubric.     It  says  '  an  Act  was  made 
and  ordained  by  authority  of  Parliament  in  the  same  second 
year.'     That  refers  to  an  Act  of  Parliament  which  was  read  a 
third  time  in  the  third  year,  so  that  it  was  not  even  a  complete 
Bill  in  the  second  year.     It  was  read  a  third  time  and  received 
the  Eoyal  assent  in  the  third  year.     I  point  to  that  as  really  a 
precedent  for  the  Ornaments  Eubric  form.     I  have  read  your 
book  and  I  gather  that  you  do  not  take  that  view  ? — No,  I  still 
rely  upon  the  word  '  made.'     I  say  that  Acts  of  Parliament  are 
made  by  Parliament,  but  do  not  become  operative  until  they 
receive  the  Eoyal  assent. 

8624.  (Mr.  Prothero.)  Where  does  the  word  '  made '  occur  ? 
It  does  not  occur  in  the  rubric  ? — No,  it  does  not. 

8625.  (Sir  Lewis  Dibdin.)  You  have  not  got  the  words  before 
you.     The  words   are   'An  Act  was   made   and   ordained  by 
authority  of  Parliament  in  the  same  second  year,'  and  as  I  have 
told  you  that  Bill  passed  the  third  time  in  the  third  year  ? — 
Yes,  it  passed  the  first  day  in  the  third  year. 

8626.  Still  the  third  reading  was  in  the  third  year? — Yes. 

8627.  I  gather  from  your  book  that  you  do  not  think  much 
of  that  as  a  precedent.     I  think  that  is  the  Act  which  you 
suggest  was  drawn  by  the  village  schoolmaster? — No,  pardon 
me,  the  suggestion  is  that  the  Act  is  based  upon  a  petition  from 
the  parishioners,  and  Parliament  quotes   the  petition   as  the 
reason  for  the  Act. 

8628.  But  what  do  you  mean  by  that ;    the  Act  was   in 
petition  form,  was  it  not  ?    Why  do  you  say  that  they  quote 

1  See  pp.  113-8. 


NOT  A  CASE  OF  USUS  LOQUENDI          305 

the  petition? — The  parishioners  of  the  two  parishes  make  a 
complaint  that  the  previous  Act  was  passed  to  their  prejudice, 
iniquitously  they  say,  and  put  them  to  great  inconvenience ;  and 
they  beg  Parliament  and  beg  the  Queen  to  dissolve  the  union 
of  the  two  parishes,  and  the  Act  quotes  the  petition  of  the 
parishioners  and  enacts  accordingly. 

8629.  But  you  are  aware,  are  you  not,  that  the  whole  of  that 
Act,  and  a  great  many  other  Acts  in  the  Statute  Book,  is  in  the 
form  of  a  petition  ? — No. 

8630.  Not  only  what  you  say  is  quoted,  but  the  whole 
thing  ? — The  whole  Act  is  not  in  the  form  of  a  petition. 

8631.  Yes,  it  is. — It  enacts. 

8632.  You  are  aware,  are  you  not,  that  until  a  comparatively 
late  period,  all  Acts  of  Parliament,  and  at   the  time  we   are 
speaking  of  a  great  many  Acts  of  Parliament,  were  made  in  the 
form  of  a  petition  and  the  only  evidence  of  the  Koyal  Assent 
was  the  La  Heine,  le  veult,  or  the  form  of  assent  written  at  the 
end,  and  they  appear  in  the  Statute  Books  still  in  petition 
form  ? — Yes. 

8633.  And  that  is  one  of  them,  is  it  not  ? — Yes,  undoubtedly, 
but  I  think  if  you  read  the  first  part  of  the  Act,  the  preamble, 
really  it  is  the  wording  of   the  petitioners.     The  Act  in    the 
ordinary  form  of  a  Statute  would  not  make  the  very  grave  and 
serious  accusations   against  the   Member  of   Parliament  who 
1  inordinately '  got  the  parishes  united. 

8634.  Surely  the  whole  Act,  preamble  and  everything  else, 
is  the  petition  of  the  people.     You  suggest — it  does  not  sound 
to  me  a  very  likely  suggestion — that  it  was  drawn  by  the  village 
schoolmaster  ? — Not  the  Act,  but  the  petition. 

8635.  I  put  it  to  you  that  the  whole  Act  is  the  petition  ? — 
I  think  not.     It  says  '  Be  it  enacted.' 

8636.  Let  us  look  at  it,  because  this  is  really  in  identical 
form  with  the  Ornaments  Rubric.     It  is  1  Mary,    Statute  3, 
chapter  10.     It  begins  '  Lamentably  complaining,  shewen  unto 
your  Highness  your   obedient  and  faithful  subjects,'  quite  a 
familiar  beginning? — Yes. 

8637.  Then  follow  the  words  I  have  quoted  which  I   am 
relying  upon.     Then  the  operative  part  of  the  Statute  is  still  the 
petition.     '  It  may,  therefore,  please  your  most  excellent  High- 
ness.    That  it  may  be  enacted  by  the  same  your  Highness  with 
the  assent  of  the  Lords  spiritual  and  temporal  and  the  Commons 
in  this  present  Parliament  assembled  and  by  authority  of  the 
same,  that ' — Then  the  next  sentence  is  '  And  that ' — still  the 
petition,  and  so  on  right  through  the  Act.     From  beginning  to 
end  it  is  a  petition  in  absolutely  familiar  form,  of  course  ? — But 
do  you  suppose  that  Parliament  would  say  '  That  where  by 
the  sinister  Labour  and  Procurement  of  one  .  .  .  inordinately 


306  HAD  FIEST  UNIFOBMITY  ACT 

seeking  his  private  lucre  and  profit  ? '    Surely  that  is  the  petition 
of  the  parishioners. 

8638.  Yes,  it  is  a  part  of  the  petition.     The  whole  thing 
is  the  petition  ? — Surely  not. 

8639.  I  think  I  can  make  this  clearer  if  I  read  again  from 
Hardcastle  who  is  the  text  writer  on  this  subject.     He   says 
at  page  46  :    '  Evidence  of  the  Eoyal  Assent  other  than  the 
words   of    enactment  was   never  required  as    to   the   earlier 
Statutes,  public  or  private,  and  from  3  Edward  I.  to  Henry  VI. 
there  is  no  mention  of  the  Eoyal  Assent  on  public  or  private 
Acts  other  than  the  words  of  enactment.     The  importance  of 
this  question  with  reference  to  old  Acts  lay  in  the  fact  that  as 
the  Act  was  in  the  form  of  a  petition  unless  it  was  endorsed 
Le  Boi  le  veult  or  Soit  fait  comme  il  est  desire,  the  sole  evidence 
of  Eoyal  Assent  was  the   appearance  of   the  Bill  on  record.' 
And  we  know  (Sir  Francis  Jeune  will  bear  me  out)  that  there 
are  hundreds  of  Acts  on  the  Statute  Book,  of  which  the  first  Act 
of  Uniformity  itself  is  one,  which  so  far  as  anything  appears  on 
the  Statute  Book  are  mere  petitions  ? — Yes. 

8640.  I  will  not  ask  you  any  more  questions  about  it  because 
we  are  not  quite  agreed  amongst  ourselves  on  the  Commission 
what  the  form  of  it  is.     But  now  the  next  point  I  want  to  ask 
you  about  is  with  regard  to  the  special  date.     I  quite  under- 
stand your  point  of  view,  which  I  think  is  that  in  the  first  Act 
of  Uniformity  a  special  date  was  named  for  the  coming  into 
operation  of  the  Act,  and  you  say  that  because  a  special  date 
was  settled  for  the  commencement  of  the  use  of  the  Prayer 
Book?— Yes. 

8641.  Now  I  point  out  to  you  that  that  is  quite  a  different 
thing  from  the   commencement    of    the   Act.     It   is    quite   a 
different  thing  to  say  that  the  Act  is  to  come  into  operation  on 
a  particular  day  and  to  say,  in  the  course  of  the  Act,  that  on  a 
particular  day  the  Prayer  Book  which  is  authorised  by  the  Act 
is  to  be  then  first  used.     The  two  things  are  not   the   same. 
You  will  agree  with  me  there  ? — I  should  demur  to  that. 

8642.  Then  let  me  test  it  in  this  way.     The  Act  contained 
other  things  besides  the  fact  that  the  Prayer  Book  was  to  be 
used  on  a  particular  day,  did  it  not  ? — Yes. 

8643.  In  the  8th  section  of  the  Act  of  Uniformity  it  required 
the  churchwardens   to   get  the  Prayer    Book   against   Whit- 
sunday, was  it  not  ? — Yes. 

8644.  Under  what  authority  did  the  churchwardens  buy  the 
book;  was  it  not  under  the  authority  of  this  Act   of   Parlia- 
ment ? — Yes. 

8645.  Then  it  must  have   come   into  operation   for   some 
purpose,  for  that  purpose,  before  Whitsunday;  otherwise  the 
churchwardens  could  not  have  acted  upon  it?— But  I  under- 


A  SPECIAL  DATE?  307 

stand  by  the  Act  coming  into  operation  the  date  upon  which  the 
transgression  or  neglect  of  the  Act  would  be  penal. 

8646.  Oh,  no,  this  is  not  a  matter,  I  think,  that  we  need 
differ  about.     The  date  when  an  Act  of  Parliament  comes  into 
operation  is  the  date  when  somebody  is  bound  to  obey  it  ? — Yes. 

8647.  We  are  agreed,  are  we  not,  that  the  churchwardens 
were  bound  under  the  Act  to  get  these  Prayer  Books  ready  by 
Whitsunday  ? — Yes. 

8648.  Then  it  is  impossible  to  say  that  it  first  came  into 
operation  on   Whitsunday  because  they  had   to  act  under  its 
provisions  before  Whitsunday  ? — The  object  of  the  Act  was  to 
sanction  the  legal  use  of  the  new  Prayer  Book  from  a  certain 
date. 

8649.  (Sir  F.  H.  Jeune.)  Do  you  mean  the  legal  use  or  the 
compulsory  use  ?     You  know  there  is  a  distinction.     It  would 
be  legal  before  it  was  compulsory.     All  that  the  Act  says  is 
that  it  should  be  compulsory  at   Whitsunday,  it  was  legal 
before  that  ? — Yes. 

8650.  It  does  not  say  that  it  shall  not  be  legal  before  Whit- 
sunday ? — It  does  say  that  if  copies  are  procured  before  they 
may  be  used. 

8651.  (Sir  Lewis  Dibdin.)  And  not  only  that  they  may,  but 
that  they  are  to  be  used  ? — Yes. 

8652.  That  if  the  Prayer  Book  was  got  beforehand  within 
three  weeks  of  the  time  of  being  obtained  it  was  to  be  used  ? — Yes. 

8653.  Then  the  Act  came  into  operation  as  to  any  parishes 
of  that  sort  prior  to  the  Whitsunday,  did  it  not  ? — The  rule  that 
I  am  referring  to  is  the  rule  which  says  that  every  Act  of  Parlia- 
ment in  which  the  commencement  thereof  is  not  directed  to  be 
from  a  specific  time  shall  come  under  the  ordinary  rule  that  it 
dates  from  the  first  day  of  the  session.     But  the  commencement 
of  this  Act  is  directed  to  be  from  a  specific  time. 

8654.  That  is  just  what  I  am  putting  to  you  ;  it  was  with 
regard  to  one  of  its  purposes,  but  it  evidently  was  not  with 
regard  to  another  purpose  that  I  have  just  indicated,  namely, 
procuring  the  Prayer  Book  ? — But  with  all  respect  I  should  be 
disposed  to  contend  that  the  commencement  thereof  is  directed 
from  a  specific  time,  namely,  Whitsunday. 

8655.  But  that  is  only  repeating  the  same  thing  again.    You 
have  not  yet  dealt  with  the  difficulty  that  I  put  to  you,  that 
although  the  use  of  the  Prayer  Book  was  primarily  for  Whit- 
sunday there  were,  at  any  rate,  two  purposes  for  which  the 
Act  would  come  into  operation  sooner ;  first  of  all  the  church- 
wardens had  to  get  the  Prayer  Book  under  the  provisions  of  the 
Act  before  Whitsunday,  and  secondly,  if  they  did  so  get  it  in 
time  the  book  was  to  be  used  and  come  into  operation  before 
Whitsunday  ? — Yes. 

x  2 


308  HAD  FIRST  UNIFORMITY  ACT 

8656.  Then  how  can  you  say  that  there  was  this  date  Whit- 
sunday fixed  for  the  Act  (not  the  Prayer  Book)  coming  into 
operation  ? — All  the  authorities,  Heylin  and  the  rest,  say  that 
the  Act  came  into  operation  on  that  date. 

8657.  I   do  not  think  they   do.     In  the  popular   sense,  of 
course,  it  came  into  operation  on  that  date  because  that  was 
the  day  when  the  Prayer  Book  generally  came  into  operation, 
but  I  do  not  think  you  will  find  any  accurate  description  of  the 
Act  as  being  one  of  those  Acts  which  is  not  to  be  referred  to 
the  first  day  of    the  session  but  is  to  be   referred  to   some 
special  date  ? — I  should  think  the  fixed  date  might  cover  the 
whole  time.     Heylin  says,  for  example  :  '  At  Easter  some  began 
to  officiate  by  it,  followed  by  others  as  soon  as  books  could  be 
provided.     But   on  Whitsunday,  being  the  day  appointed  by 
Act  of  Parliament,  it  was  solemnly  executed  in  the  Cathedral 
Church  of  St.  Paul.' 

8658.  Yes,  it  was  the  day  appointed  by  Act  of  Parliament 
to  use  the  Prayer  Book,  but  Heylin  does  not  say  it  was  the 
appointed  day  for  the  Act  of  Uniformity  to  come  into  operation. 
There  is  another  point   on  that.      There  were    some  people 
pardoned   by   that   Act,   were    there    not,   persons    who    had 
transgressed   by  having  unauthorised  services  without  proper 
authority,  and  the  Act  by  its  first  section  pardons  them,  does  it 
not  ?— No. 

8659.  Do  you  say  that  that  pardon  was  put  off  till  Whit- 
sunday ? — No  ;   not  till  Whitsunday ;   it  came  into  operation 
undoubtedly  when  the  Act  was  passed,  when  it  received  the 
Royal  Assent. 

8660.  Then  there  at  any  rate  is  a  purpose  answered  by  the 
Act  of  Uniformity  for  which  purpose  it  certainly  did  not  come 
into  operation    until   Whitsunday? — But    that  is   extraneous 
matter  altogether. 

8661.  I  have  read  your  book  and  I  see  what  you  suggest  is 
that  the  pardon  is  only  in  the  preamble  of  the  Act  of  Uniformity 
and  that  it  was  not  carried  out  by  the  Act  of  Uniformity,  but 
carried  out  by  the  General  Pardon  Act  at  the  end  of  the  session. 
That,  I  think,  correctly  represents  your  view  at  page  604  ? — Yes. 

8662.  I  point  out  to  you  in  the  first  place  that  I  think  you 
are  not  quite  accurate  as  to  what  the  Act  did.     It  is  not  the  fact 
that  the  pardon  is  only  in  the  preamble ;  it  is  quite  true  that 
it  is  mentioned  in  the  preamble,  but  if  you  look  at  the  operative 
part  it  is  in  the  very  first  section.     Let  me  read  it  (this  Act 
again  is  in  the  petition  form) :  '  That  it  may  be  ordained  and 
enacted   by  His  Majesty  with    the  assent  of   the   Lords   and 
Commons  in   this  present  Parliament  assembled,  and  by  the 
authority  of  the  same,  that  all  and  singular  Person  and  Persons 
that  have  offended  concerning  the  Premisses  other  than  such 


A  SPECIAL  DATE?  309 

Person  and  Persons  as  now  be  and  remain  in  Ward  in  the  Tower 
of  London  or  in  the  Fleet  may  be  pardoned  thereof.'  That  is  an 
enactment  ?  l — Is  it  ? 

8663.  That  is  not  preamble? — Is  that    not  part    of    the 
petition  to  the  King  ? 

8664.  The  whole  Act  is  petition  but  it  is  not  preamble  ;  it  is 
the  operative  part  of  the  Act ;  it  is  actually  the  first  thing  in 
the  Act,  in  the  first  section? — But  how  then  do  you  account 
for  the  fact  that  an  Act  had  to  be  passed  carrying  out  that 
enactment,  as  you  call  it  ? 

8665.  No ;  the  General  Pardon  Act  did  not  refer,  did  it,  to 
these  particular  persons  who  had  committed  these  offences  ?  * 
It  was  a  general  pardon  for  all  offences  under  different  heads 
in  which,  speaking  from  my  own  study  of  it,  you  will  not  find 
this   particular  offence? — Yes,  it  was  a  general  pardon    and 
some  people  were  excepted  from  it  in  the  Act  of  Uniformity, 
namely,  the  persons  confined  at  the  time. 

8666.  I  quite  agree  with  you  that  the  General  Pardon  Act 
would  have  covered  those  persons  if  they  had  not  been  already 
pardoned  by  this  Act ;  but  I  put  it  to  you  that  it  is  inaccurate 
to  say  that  the  Act  of  Uniformity  did  not  pardon  them,  that  it 
was  only  the  preamble.     It  was  the  very  first  thing  done  by  the 
operative  part  of  the  Act  ? — That  is,  of  course,  a  matter  of  legal 
construction.     What  puzzles  me  in  that  case  is  why  should  it 
be  necessary  to  hurry.     The  Act  of  Pardon  was  passed  in  one 
day,  and  my  view  is  that  it  was  found  that  the  provisions  of 
the  Act  of  Uniformity  did  not  cover  the  case,  and  therefore  this 
Act  for  general  pardon  was  passed  just  in  time  to  receive  the 
Eoyal  Assent. 

8667.  But  why  do  you  assume  that  the  General  Pardon  Act 
had  anything  to  do  with  these  particular  offences  ?     It  covered 
probably  hundreds  of  people  in  different  parts  of  the  country 
guilty  of  different  offences.     There  is  nothing  to  point  to  the 
Act  of  Uniformity ;    it  is  not  recited  in  the  preamble  of  the 
Pardon  Act.     There  is  nothing  said  to  the  effect  that  the  people 
to  be  pardoned  under  the  Act  of  Uniformity  were  intended  to  be 
pardoned  under  this  General  Pardon  Act.     The  two  things  are 
separate.     It  so  happened  that  they  were  both  passed  in  the 
same  session  but  that  is  all. — May  I  ask  for  an  explanation  ? 

1  It  does  not  follow.  The  petition  might  surely  be  granted  in  the 
General  Pardon  Act  in  the  same  Parliament.  Moreover  the  title  of  the  Act, 
which  makes  no  reference  to  prisoners,  seems  to  exclude  Sir  Lewis  Dibdin's 
view. 

*  Yes,  it  did,  as  I  have  shown  elsewhere.  See  p.  124.  The  exceptions  in 
both  Acts  are  the  same.  Is  it  likely  that  two  Acts  of  Parliament  would  have 
been  passed  in  the  same  Session  and  received  the  Royal  assent  the  same 
day,  when  one  of  them  would  have  released  all  the  prisoners  described  in 
the  other  ?  It  is  incredible. 


310  HAD  FIEST  UNIFOEMITY  ACT  A  SPECIAL  DATE? 

The  general  pardon  prayed  for  in  the  Act  of  Uniformity  was 
to  cover  all  persons  except  prisoners  in  the  Tower  and  in  the 
Fleet. 

8668.  No,  excuse  me,  the  pardon  in  the  Act  of  Uniformity 
was  not  a  general  pardon ;    it  was   a  pardon   in   respect   of 
particular  offences  ? — Where  does  it  say  that  ? 

8669.  If  you  look  at  the  preamble  you  will  see  that  '  And  as 
the  doers  and   executors  of  the  said  rites  and  ceremonies  in 
other  form  than  of  late  years  they  have  been  used  were  pleased 
therewith  :  So  other  not  using  the  same  rites  and  ceremonies 
were  thereby  greatly  offended :  And  albeit  the  King's  Majesty, 
with  the  advice  of  his  most  entirely  beloved  Uncle  the  Lord 
Protector  and  other  of  His  Highness's  Council,  hath  heretofore 
divers  times  assayed  to  stay  Innovations  or  new  Eites  concern- 
ing the   Premisses ;   yet  the  same   hath   not   had  such   good 
success  as  His  Highness  required  in  that  behalf;  whereupon 
His   Highness  by  the   most   prudent  advice  aforesaid,   being 
pleased  to  bear  with  the  frailty  and  weakness  of  his  subjects  in 
that  behalf,  of  his  great  clemency  hath  not  been  only  content 
to  abstain  from  punishment  of  those  that  have  offended  in  that 
behalf,  for  that  His  Highness  taketh  that  they  did  it  of  a  good 
zeal;  but  also  to  the  intent  a  uniform  quiet  and  godly  Order 
should  be  had ' ;  he   allowed  the  Prayer  Book.     That  is   the 
preamble  ? — Yes. 

8670.  Then  the  first  section  is  '  That  all  and  singular  Person 
and  Persons  that  have  offended  concerning  the  Premisses '  other 
than  the    people   in    the   Tower  '  may   be  pardoned   thereof.' 
Then  the  whole  Bill  being  in  petition  form 1  the  Eoyal  Assent  is 
put  at  the  end,  and  there  is  the  Act  of  Parliament.     May  I  put 
it  to  you  that  at  any  rate,  assuming  that  you  were  wrong  about 
the  general   pardon,  it  is  quite  clear  that  the  pardons  in  the 
Act  of  Uniformity  would  have  come  into  operation  when  the 
Eoyal  Assent  was  given,  assuming  for  the  moment  that  they 
were  not  comprised  in  the  General  Pardon  Act? — Yes. 

8671.  Then  if  that  were  so,  that  is  another  matter  in  this 
Act  of  Parliament  which  certainly  did  not  come  into  operation 
on  the  Whitsunday  ? — True,  but  then  the  general  pardons  that 
you  refer    to    there   were    extraneous    to  the   Act   enforcing 
uniformity. 

8672.  Why  were  they  extraneous  ?     It  is  part  of  the  Act. 
You  have  four  definite  purposes  in  the  Act.     Summarising  them, 
you  have  the  pardon,  the  Prayer  Book  to  come  into  operation, 
the  churchwardens  to  buy  it,  and  the  earlier  use  of  the  Prayer 
Book  under   certain  circumstances.     Three  out  of  those  four 
things  do  not  come  into  operation  on  the  day  which  you  say  was 

1  It  is  not,  nor  the  half  of  it. 


DE  FEEIA  AND  DE  LA  CUADEA     311 

the  day  appointed  ? — But  then  my  contention  is  that  the  Act 
in  so  far  as  it  dealt  with  ceremonial  and  so  forth  is  directed  to 
come  into  operation  at  a  certain  fixed  date. 

8673.  For  one  purpose  it  is,  and  for  the  other  purposes  it  is 
not  ? — Because  there  are  so  many  Acts  of  Parliament  which 
deal  with  a  whole  series  of  matters  having  no  connection  with 
each  other. 

8674.  Then  I  have  pointed  out  to  you  another  illustration, 
an  Act  of  Parliament  in  Henry  VIII. *s  reign,  where  exactly  the 
same  thing  occurred,  that  is  to  say  where  the  Act  was  to  come 
into  operation  at  some  subsequent  date,  subsequent  I  mean  to 
the  Act   passing,   and   yet  it  is  referred  to   according   to   the 
ordinary  rule  by  the  first  day  of  the  session  ? — Yes. 

8675.  You  have   no  explanation   of  that.     I  do  not  think 
I  need  ask  you  any  questions  about  the  Order  of  Communion  ;  I 
think  we  quite  understand  your  points  of  view  about  that,  and 
I  think  I  have  answered  them.     But  I  want  to  ask  you,  and  this 
is  the  last  point  of  my  examination,  what  do  you  refer  to  when 
you  say,  as  you  do  in  your  memorandum,  and  also  in  your  book, 
that  Queen  Elizabeth  on  her  accession  showed  a  determination 
to  restore  the  earlier  ceremonial  prior  to  the  First  Prayer  Book 
of  Edward  ?    I  want  to  make  my  question  quite  clear.     I  quite 
understand  that  you  might  say,  as  many  authorities  have  said, 
that  Queen  Elizabeth  desired  to  restore  the  First  Prayer  Book 
rather  than  the  Second  Prayer  Book.     But  that  of  course  would 
not  help  you,  that  is  not  your  point.     Your  point  is  that  Queen 
Elizabeth  wanted  to  go  back  behind  the  First  Prayer  Book  to 
the  ceremonial  as  it  existed  at  the  end  of  her  father's  reign,  I 
think  you  say,  at  any  rate  prior  to  the  First  Prayer  Book.     On 
what  is  that   founded  ?    The  passage  in  your   book  to  which 
I  refer  is  at  pages  577  to  579  ? — It  is  partly  founded  on  what 
I   have  quoted   from  the  Simancas  documents  :    that  she  ex- 
pressed to  the  Spanish  agent  or  ambassador  her  intention  to 
restore  religion  as  it  had  been  at  the  death  of  her  father,  as  it 
had  been  left  by  her  father. 

8676.  Let  me  deal  with  that.     You  have  seen  that  it  is 
a  mistake  to  put  that  down  to  De  la  Cuadra ;  it  was  really  De 
Feria  who  made  that  statement  ?— Yes.1 

8677.  Do  you  attach  any  particular  weight  to  De  Feria's 
representations  of  Queen  Elizabeth's  views  ;  do  not  you  think 
she  was  rather,  to  put  it  in  a  colloquial  way,  making  a  fool  of 
him  ?     Can  you  take  what  she  said  to  him  as  being  what  you 
call  in  your  book  making  a  clean  breast  of  it  and  expressing 
her  real  views?      Do  you  think    that    is  really  a  possible 

1  But  he  sent  it  to  Philip  by  the  hand  of  De  la  Cuadra.  So  that  they 
both  shared  the  responsibility  for  the  despatch,  and  perhaps  composed  it 
together. 


312  ELIZABETH  AND  THE 

explanation  ? — I  think  so.       I  think  it   is   admitted   that  her 
own  proclivities  were  in  that  direction. 

8678.  If  you  mean  in  the  direction  of  going  behind  the  First 
Prayer  Book  to  the  ceremonial  before  it,  that  is  not  admitted  so 
far  as  I  am  aware.1     But  do  you  attach  weight  to  De  Feria  as  a 
witness  ? — I  do  not  attach  weight  to  him  as  a  witness,  except 
where  the  probabilities  of  the  case  seem  to  me  to  bear  him  out. 

8679.  But   do   you  attach  weight  to  his  representation  of 
Queen  Elizabeth's  views?  otherwise,  I   do  not  see  why  you 
should  quote  him  as  your  authority.     You  thought  it  was  De 
la  Cuadra,  but  now  that  you  know  it  is  De  Feria,  I  do  not 
understand  you  to  withdraw  the  quotation  as  making  his  state- 
ment any  the  less  important,  that  she  wanted  to  restore  the 
ritual  of  her  father? — I  certainly  attach  weight  to  that  para- 
graph, because  I  hold  that  the  Queen's  own  inclinations  were 
in  that  direction. 

8680.  Now,  I  should  like  to  draw  your  attention  to  what 
De  Feria  said  in  another  despatch  ;  it  is  at  page  16  of  the  same 
volume  of  Spanish  State  Papers.     This  is  in  a  despatch  from 
Count  de  Feria  to  the  King  on  the  29th  December,  only  a  few 
weeks  before  this,  in  which  he  is  describing  an  interview  with 
the   Queen,  and  what   he  says   is   this  :    '  I   answered  civilly, 
although  I  am  displeased  to  see  the  great  care  they  take  to  hide 
from  me  everything  they  do,  both  great  and  small,  which  they 
carry  to  an  extent  that  your  Majesty  cannot  imagine  or  believe ; 
and  indeed,  I  am  afraid  that  one  fine  day  we  shall  find  this 
woman  married,  and  I  shall  be  the  last  man  in  the  place  to 
know  anything  about  it.'     That  does  not  look  as  if  De  Feria 
was   a  man  very  much  in  the  confidence  of  the  Queen,  does 
it? — Very  likely  not  in  her  confidence,  but  that  is  no  reason 
why  she  should  conceal  her  views  from  him  on  that  particular 
subject. 

8681.  You  think  she  truly  stated  her  views  on  this  subject, 
at  any  rate  ? — Yes,  I  think  so. 

8682.  May  I  draw  your  attention  to  another  despatch  from 
Count  de  Feria  to  the  King,  just  a  few  days  after  the  one  that 
you  rely  upon,  when  he  had  an  interview  with  her  and  discussed 
her  views.     It  is  at  page  61  of  the  same  volume :  '  She  answered 
amiably   that    she  thanked  your   Majesty   for  your   message. 
Subsequently  in  conversation  with  me  she  said  three  or  four 
very  bad  things.      One  was  that  she  wished  the  Augustinian 
Confession  to  be  maintained  in  her  realm,  whereat  I  was  much 
surprised  and  found  fault  with  it  all  I  could,  adducing  the  argu- 
ments I  thought  might  dissuade  her  from  it.     She  then  told  me 
it  would  not   be   the  Augustinian  Confession,  but  something 

1  Yes,  it  is — e.g.  by  Froude,  Macaulay,  and  Hallam,  as  I  have  shown  in 
the  body  of  this  volume. 


CONFESSION  OF  AUGSBUEG  313 

else  like  it,  and  that  she  differed  very  little  from  us  as  she 
believed  that  God  was  in  the  Sacrament  of  the  Eucharist,  and 
only  dissented  from  three  or  four  things  in  the  Mass.'  The 
Augustinian  Confession  I  think  you  will  agree  is  the  Augsburg 
Confession  ? — Yes,  I  suppose  it  is. 

8683.  It  is  so  stated  by  the  Editor  of  these  papers,  '  Other- 
wise the  Confession  of  Augsburg ' l ;  is  it  not  common  knowledge 
that  it  was  the  Confession  of  Augsburg  over  which  Henry  VIII. 
quarrelled  with  the  foreign  Protestants ;  he  would  not  accept 
the  Confession  of  Augsburg  but  put  out  the  Ten  Articles  instead, 
and  that  was  the  point  of  divergence  (I  think  about  1535)  between 
Henry  VIII.  and  the  foreign  Protestants ;  is  not  that  so  ? — Yes. 

8684.  Then  it  does  not  look  as  if  Queen  Elizabeth  was  alto- 
gether consistent  or  frank  in  her  expression  of  views  to  De 
Feria  ? — I  do  not  understand  that  passage :  '  She  then  told  me 
it  would  not  be  the  Augustinian  Confession,  but  something  else 
like  it,  and  that  she  differed  very  little  from  us  as  she  believed 
that  God  was  in  the  Sacrament  of  the  Eucharist.'     I  suppose 
she  refers  there  to  the  Lutheran  doctrine  of  the  Eucharist,  which 
was  quite  as  emphatic  as  Transubstantiation  and  with  as  strong 
a  sense  of  the  Eeal  Presence. 

8685.  I  will  not  attempt  to  follow  you  there,  but  what  I  do 
notice  is  that  within  a  week  or  two  of  her  apparently  telling  him 
that  she  would  like  to  restore  the  state  of  things  as  in  her  father's 
time,  she  says  that  for  herself  she  accepts  the  Confession  of 
Augsburg,  which  was  the  very  point  on  which  her  father  split 
with  the  foreign  Protestants  ? — No,  she  said, '  The  state  of  things 
when  her  father  died.' 

8686.  But,  I  think,  Henry  had  not  adopted  the  Confession 
of  Augsburg  when  he  died  ? — It  had  not  come  out  then,  I  think. 

8687.  The  Confession  of  Augsburg  came  out  in  1535,  did  it 
not  ?— Did  it  ? 

8688.  I   thought  so.     I   may  be  wrong,  you   are   a   much 
greater  authority  than  I  am.     I  have  a  book  here, '  Green  on  the 
Thirty-Nine  Articles,'  which  says  this  at  page  5  :  '  Negotiations 
had  been  going  on  in  1535,  between  England  and  the  Germans 
who  had   accepted  the  Augsburg  Confession '  ? — Then  I  am 
wrong. 

8689.  Now  I  want  to  draw  your  attention  to  a  contemporary 
despatch  in  the  Venetian  State  Papers.    It  is  of  the  same  date. 
In  the  calendar  of  State  Papers  of  Venice  (1558-1580),  you  will 
find,  at  page  81,  that  the  Venetian  Ambassador  with  King  Philip 
writes  this  to  the  Doge  and  Senate  on  4th  May  1559 :  '  The 
Queen  would  still  wish  to  some  extent  to  feign  to  profess  the 
Catholic  religion,  but  she  can  conceal  herself  no  longer.     On 

1  But  see  p.  6. 


314  GUEST'S  LETTEE  AND 

St.  George's  Day  (23rd  April),  the  Patron  Saint  of  the  Knights 
of  the  Garter,  she  attended  the  ceremony  then  performed,  never 
having  appeared  at  any  other,'  and  so  on.  So  that  it  would 
appear  that  other  ambassadors  at  the  same  period  did  not 
regard  Queen  Elizabeth's  efforts  to  persuade  them  of  what  is 
here  called  her  '  feigning  to  profess  the  Catholic  religion '  as 
being  any  expression  of  her  real  views  ? — But  at  her  coronation 
she  attended  the  old  service  and  ceremonial,  and  objected  to 
nothing  but  the  Elevation. 

8690.  That  may  or  may  not  be  the  fact,  but  I  do  not  think 
it  goes  to  the  point  whether  you  can  rely  upon  sentences  in  the 
Foreign  Ambassador's   despatches   as   being  really   deliberate 
statements  of   Queen   Elizabeth's  views   on   matters   of   reli- 
gion?— Well,  it  appears  to  me  she  told  the  truth  as  to  her 
intention. 

8691.  On  the  subject  of  Queen  Elizabeth's  views  and  her 
intentions,  there  is  a  passage  to  which  I  want  to  draw  your 
attention  on  page  379  of  your  book.1     It  is  this  :  '  Both  the 
Prayer  Books  of  Edward  were  abolished  by  Mary's  legislation, 
and  when  Elizabeth  came  to  the  throne  she  was  most  anxious  to 
restore  the  First  Prayer  Book  of  Edward  and  retain  the  ancient 
ceremonial.     Failing  to  carry  her  point  so  far,  she  appointed  a 
small  company  of  divines  to  revise  Edward's  second  book  under 
the  presidency  of  Parker,  who,  however,  was  absent  most  of  the 
time  on  account  of  illness.     The  Puritan  element  was  repre- 
sented by  Sandys.'     So  far  I  have  no  question  to  ask  you,  but 
you  go  on  to  say,   '  Secretary  Cecil,  doubtless  by  instruction 
from  the  Queen,  sent  a  series  of  suggestions  to  the  Committee, 
including  the  following,'  which  you  proceed  to  give  as  a  quota- 
tion :  '  Whether  such  ceremonies  as  were  lately  taken  away  by 
King   Edward's    [Second]    Book '    (the  word  '  Second '   being 
inserted  by  yourself  in  brackets)   '  might  not  be  resumed,  not 
being  evil  in  themselves  ?  '     I  want  to  know  on  what  authority 
you  say  that,  '  Secretary  Cecil,  doubtless  by  instructions  from 
the  Queen,  sent   a  series   of    suggestions   to   the  Committee,' 
which  suggestions  you  give  as  a  quotation.     I  see  it  is  quoted 
from    Strype.     Is    Strype    your    authority? — Strype    is    my 
authority.     I  presume  I  quote  him  there. 

8692.  Strype  refers,  does  he  not,  to  the  document  on  which 
he  founds  himself? — I  forget  at  this  moment. 

8693.  It  is,  of  course,  the  well-known  letter  called  Guest's 
letter,  which  I  think  you  know  very  well  ? — Yes. 

8694.  And  Strype  puts  the  words  which  you  have  quoted, 
only   without   the    word    '  Second,'    making   '  King  Edward's 

1  I  deal  with  this  point  on  a  later  page,  and  also  in  a  separate  chapter  in 
this  volume,  and  have,  I  think,  completely  vindicated  my  accuracy. 


STEYPE'S  SUGGESTION  315 

Book '  apply  to  the  Second  Book — that  is  your  own  interpola- 
tion ? — Yes. 

8695.  He  puts  the  reference  to  the  document  which  he  takes 
it  from.      Now   Guest's  letter   is   at   page    459    in   '  Strype's 
Annals/  Volume  L,  Part  II.,  and  those  words  there  are  as 
follows  :  '  Of  Ceremonies.     Ceremonies  once  taken  away  as  ill- 
used   should  not  be  taken   again,  though  they  be  not  evil  of 
themselves,  but  might  be  well  used.     And  that  for  four  causes.' 
You  observe  that  there  is  nothing  about  King  Edward's  book  at 
all  in  that  ?— No. 

8696.  What  I  wanted  to  ask  you  was,  why  you  quoted  from 
Strype's  imperfect  summary  of  the  document  rather  than  from 
the  document  itself,  which,  if  you  had  done,  all  reference  to 
King  Edward's  Book,  still   more  to   King   Edward's   Second 
Book  which   is  the   point  of  this   quotation,  would  have  dis- 
appeared.1    May  I  remind  you  a  little  of  what  the  position  was 
in  this  matter  ?     Guest  wrote  the  words  I  have  read.     Strype, 
commenting  on  those  words,  thinks  it  is  probable — he  does  not 
go  beyond  that,  I  think — at  any  rate  he  suggests,  that  this 
document  was   sent  in  answer  to   questions  which  had  been 
addressed  to  Guest,  and  which  he  is  answering,  and  Strype's 
summary  of  what  he  thinks  the  questions  probably  were  is  this 
extract  which  you  have  given  ? — Yes. 

8697.  That,  you  will  observe,  is  speculation  on  the  part  of 
Strype  ? 2— Yes. 

8698.  Strype  says  nothing  about  Cecil's  questions  being  by 
instruction  of  the  Queen  ? — That  is  my  suggestion. 

8699.  Strype  says  nothing  about  King  Edward's  Book  being 
the  Second  Book  ? 3 — No,  I  say  that  expressly. 

8700.  So  that  what  it  comes  to  is  this  :  that  first  of  all  there 
is  no  record  of  these  questions  having  been  sent  from  Cecil, 
which  you  state  as  a  fact ;  that  is  only  a  speculation  of  Strype. 
Further,  there  is  no  authority  whatever  for  the  notion  that  these 
questions,  if  they  were  ever  put,  were  put  on  the  instructions  of 
the  Queen.     There  is  nothing  in  the  document  to  show  that 
Edward's  Book,  either  the  First  or  the  Second  Book,  was  referred 
to  at  all,  and  the  suggestion  that  it  was  the  Second  Book  comes 
from  yourself  and  not  from  Strype  ?  4 — Yes. 

8701.  And  yet  the  whole  object  of  this  extract  is  to  show 

1  Not  at  all.    The  document  makes  several  references  to  the  first  Prayer 
Book. 

2  That  is  by  no  means  certain,  though  I  conceded  the  point.     Strype  is 
known  to  have  had  access  to  a  number  of  unpublished  papers  to  which  he 
does  not  always  refer. 

3  But  he  clearly  implies  it. 

4  I  have  shown  elsewhere  in  this  volume  that  Sir  Lewis  Dibdin  is  all 
wrong  here.    Being  taken  unawares,  I  made  unnecessary  concessions.     See 
p.  229. 


316  DR.  GEE  ON  GUEST'S  LETTER 

that  on  Queen  Elizabeth's  accession  she  desired  to  restore  the 
ancient  ritual  behind  the  First  Prayer  Book  of  Edward  ? — Yes. 
8702. — So  that  the  point  for  which  that  quotation  is  made 
does  not  exist  in  Guest's  letter  at  all  ? — No,  I  took  that  from 
Strype  as  his  interpretation  of  it. 

8703.  Strype  refers  to  the  original,  but  you  preferred  to  use 
Strype  instead  of   the  original  ? — Yes,  I  have  used   him  ap- 
parently there,  but  Strype's  interpretation  is  in  accordance  with 
the  well-known  views  of  the  Queen. 

8704.  It  may  be  so,  but  it  is  quoted  here  by  you  in  order 
to  prove  the  Queen's  views  ? — The  Queen  says  expressly,  on  the 
testimony  of  Parker,  that  she  would  not  have  accepted  the 
Prayer  Book 

8705.  There  may  be  other  grounds  for  your  views,  but  what 
I  am  pointing  out  is  that  the  authority  which  you  have  given 
entirely  breaks  down  ? — That  is  Strype. 

8706.  It  is  Strype,  but  do  Strype  the  justice  to  say  that  he 
referred  to  the  document  he  was  dealing  with,  and  the  document 
he  was  dealing  with  does  not  seem  to  have  been  used  for  the 
purpose  of  this  extract.     I  am  sure  you  will  agree  with  me  that 
Guest's  letter  is  not  dated  at  all,  is  it  ? — No,  it  is  not. 

8707.  And  further,  there  are  great  authorities 1  who  are  of 
opinion  that  Guest's  letter  did  not  belong  to  this  period  at  all  ? — 
Yes,  I  know  that.     Dr.  Gee  says  so. 

8708.  Right  or  wrong,  he  is  an  authority  who  has  a  right  to 
speak  on  these  matters  ? — Undoubtedly.     I  have  read  his  book 
very  carefully. 

8709.  And  Dr.  Gee  says  that  Guest's  letter  belonged  to  ten 
years  earlier  ? — Yes. 

8710.  And   if   that  were   the   case,  still  more   surely  it   is 
entirely  inadmissible  to  use,  in  order  to  show  what  Elizabeth's 
views  were  when  she  came  to  the  throne,  a  document  which  is 
undated,  and  which  many  l  authorities  regard  as  belonging  to  a 
totally  different  period,  and  to  use  it  for  that  purpose  by  putting 
in  references  to  the  Prayer  Book,  when  no  references  to  the 
Prayer  Book,  either  the  first  or  the  second,  exist  in  the  document 
at  all  ? — This  passage  in  my  book  was  written  and  published 
long  before  Dr.  Gee  published  his  book.     I  have  read  his  book 
very  carefully  more  than  once,  and  I  think  the  argument  breaks 
down.     I  do  not  think  he  makes  out  his  case. 

8711.  I  am  not  in   the   least  trying  to   get  you  to  adopt 
Dr.  Gee's  view.     What  I  do  want  to  point  out  is  that  your 
evidence  of  Queen  Elizabeth's  intentions  so  far  as  it  is  based 

1  Dr.  Gee  is  the  only  authority,  as  far  as  I  know,  and  I  have  examined 
his  theory  and  argued  out  the  whole  question  in  a  separate  chapter,  to 
which  I  refer  the  reader  on  all  points  of  Sir  Lewis  Dibdin's  examination  of 
me  on  Guest's  letter. 


JUDICIAL  DECISIONS  AND  317 

on  this  document,  disappears  and  breaks  down  ? — I  admit  that, 
but  this  document  does  not  settle  the  matter.  Many  things  are 
weak  in  themselves,  but  attain  strength  when  corroborated  by 
a  number  of  other  facts. 

8712.  You    will    agree    with    me   that    you   cannot    add 
strength  to  this  document  by  putting  in  a  word  of  a  crucial 
kind  which  does  not  exist  in  it  ? — I  quote  Strype's  words,  and 
put  in  an  interpolation  of  my  own,  expressly  and  avowedly  as 
an  interpolation. 

8713.  I  quite   agree,   but  the  point   is   that  neither   your 
interpolation  nor  Strype's  exists  in  the  original  ? — Apparently 
not. 

8714.  You  are  aware,  of  course,  that  the  Ornaments  Rubric 
has  received  the  interpretation  of  a  very  large  number  of  judges 
and,  for  a  legal  point,  quite  an  exceptional  number  of  judges  ? — 
Yes. 

8715.  And  that  they  have  all  unanimously — there  has  been 
no  difference  of  opinion  amongst  them  all — come  to  the  same 
conclusion,  that  the  view  which  I  have  been  presenting  to  you, 
that  '  authority  of  Parliament  in  the  second  year  '  has  a  refer- 
ence to  the  first  Prayer  Book,  and  that  that  is  the  true  construc- 
tion ? — Yes,  and  it  was  my  own  until  within  the  last  two  or  three 
years.     It  is  the  popular  view,  and  the  question  was  never  raised 
in  any  of  the  courts  before  as  to  the  meaning  of  the  '  second 
year  ' ;  it  was  never  disputed. 

8716.  Pardon  me,  there  was  very  great  argument  about  it  in 
the  case  of  Westerton  v.  Liddell  ? — About  the  meaning  of  the 
'  second  year '  ? 

8717.  Certainly. — I  do  not  remember  it. 

8718.  The  question  as  to  whether  the  authority  of  Parlia- 
ment  in  the  second  year  meant   the  First  Prayer  Book    or 
meant  something   else  was  certainly  raised   in    Westerton  v. 
Liddell^ — The  judges  assumed  it,  of  course,  but  was  it  ever 
raised  by  counsel  ?     Sir  Fitzroy  Kelly  was  the  leading  counsel. 

8719.  (Sir  F.  H.  Jeune.)  I  can  answer  for  that,  I  read  it 
yesterday ;  it  was  elaborately  raised  and  elaborately  decided. — 
That  is  new  to  me.     I  have  read  the  whole  of  the  argument 
several  times,  but  I  do  not  remember  it. 

8720.  (Sir  Lewis  Dibdin.)  I  will  read  it  to  you  in  the  judg- 
ment in  the  Westerton  v.  Liddell  case  from  the  special  report, 
page   156 :    '  Their   Lordships,  after  much   consideration,  are 
satisfied  that  the  construction  of  this  rubric  which  they  suggested 
at  the  hearing  of  the  case  is  its  true  meaning,  and  that  the  word 
"  ornaments  "  applies,  and  in  this  rubric  is  confined  to  those 
articles,  the  use  of  which  in  the  services  and  ministrations  of 
the  church  is  prescribed  by  the  Prayer  Book  of  Edward  the 
Sixth '  ? — That,  of  course,  I  admit,  I  know,  but  what  I  want  to 


318  THE  ORNAMENTS  EUBEIC 

ask    is,  whether  counsel  raised    the  point  that  I  have  been 
arguing  ? 

8721.  I  do  not  think  the  point  of  the  meaning  of  the  word 
'  made '  was  raised  ? — And  the  meaning  of  the  '  second  year '  ? 

8722.  (Sir  F.  H.  Jeune.)  Oh  yes,  they  go  into  the  very  dates. 

8723.  (Sir  Lewis  Dibdin.)  There  are  pages  upon  pages  of  it  ? 
— I  quite  understand  that  they  meant  the  first  book  ;   I  know 
that.     The  question  is  whether  the  other  view  was  raised  at  all. 

8724.  The  question  of  the  second  year,  you  mean  ? — Yes. 

8725.  It  was  certainly  raised.     I  do  not  know  whether  it  is 
within  your  knowledge,  but  almost  every  single  thing  in  your 
book  was  before  them.     For  instance,  Bishop  Sandys'  letter 
was  quoted  at  page  140  ? — In  the  judgment. 

8726.  No ;  page  140  of  the  special  report  of  the  case,  and 
the  whole  matter  was  argued  very  elaborately  ? — About  the 
first  and  second  year  ? 

8727.  Yes. 

8728.  (Sir  F.  H.  Jeune.}  This  is  on  page  160  of  the  judg- 
ment,   '  It  was  urged  at  the  Bar  that  the  present  rubric,  which 
refers  to  the  second  year  of  Edward  VI.,  cannot  mean  Orna- 
ments mentioned  in  the  First  Prayer  Book,  because,  as  it  is 
said,  that  Act  was  probably  not  passed,  and  the  Prayer  Book 
was  certainly  not  in  use  till  after  the  expiration  of  the  second 
year  of  Edward  VI.,  and  that  therefore  the  words  "  by  authority 
of  Parliament"  must  mean   by  virtue   of    Canons   or  Eoyal 
Injunctions  having   the   authority  of  Parliament  made  at  an 
earlier  period.'     That  is  the  very  point,  is  it  not  ? — Yes. 

8729.  That  you  see  was  '  urged  at  the  Bar.'     It   goes  on 
'  There   seems  no  reason  to  doubt  that   the  Act   in   question 
received  the  Royal  Assent  in  the  second  year  of  Edward  VI.'  ? 
— Yes,  the  judgment  says  that. 

8730.  Yes,  '  There  seems  no  reason  to  doubt  that  the  Act 
in  question  received  the  Royal  Assent  in  the  second  year  of 
Edward  VI.     It  concerned  a  matter  of  great  urgency  which  had 
been  long  under  consideration,  and  was  the  first  Act  of  the 
Session  ;  it  passed  through  one  House  of  Parliament  on  January 
15th,  1549,  N.S.,  and  the  other  on  the  21st  of  the  same  month ; 
and  the  second  year  of  the  reign  of  Edward  the  VI.  did  not 
expire  till  January  28th.     In  the  Act  of  the  5th  and  6th  Ed- 
Ward  VI.,  chapter  1,  section  5,  it  is  expressly  referred  to  as  the 
Act  "  made  in  the  second  year  of  the  King's  Majesty's  reign."  ' 
— Yes,  I  know. 

8731.  '  Upon  this  point,  therefore,  no  difficulty  can  arise.     It 
is  very  true  that  the  new  Prayer  Book  could  not  come  into  use 
until  after  the  expiration  of  that  year,  because  time  must  be 
allowed  for  printing  and  distributing  the  books;  but  its  use, 
and  the  Injunctions  contained  in  it,  were  established  by  autho- 


LETTER  OF  SANDYS  319 

rity  of  Parliament  in  the  second  year  of  Edward  VI.,  and  this 
is  the  plain  meaning  of  the  Rubric.' — Yes,  but  they  assume  that 
the  Act  received  the  Royal  Assent  in  the  second  year.  I  have 
no  doubt  that  it  did  not. 

8732.  (Sir  Lewis  Dibdin.)  What  I  want  to  point  out  to  you 
is  that  the  view  which  I  have  been  putting  to  you,  and  the 
reasons  which  I  have  been  pressing  upon  you,  are  reasons  which 
are  entirely  independent,  and  whether  the  Act  received  the 
Royal  Assent  in  the  second  year,  or  in  the  third  year,  has 
nothing  to  do  with  it  ? — Of  course,  I  cannot  accept  that. 

8733.  But  still,  I  think  you  will  accept  that  the  grounds  which 
I  have  been  putting  to  you,  be  they  good  or  bad,  are  inde- 
pendent of  that? — Your  grounds  are  quite  independent  of  it, 
but  with  regard  to  your  referring  me  to  the  list  of  eminent 
judicial  authorities,  I  admit,  of  course,  their  eminence  on  ques- 
tions with  which  they  were  familiar,  but  it  is  quite  clear  from  the 
judgment  that  they  were  groping  their  way  in  the  dark  through 
questions  with  which  they  were  not  familiar  at  all. 

8734.  The  reason  why  I  put  it  to  you  is  this.     It  seems 
to  me  that  although  this  happens  to  be  a  Statute  about  eccle- 
siastical matters,  this  is  purely  and  simply  a  question  as   to 
the  meaning  of  an  Act  of  Parliament  and  the  language  of  Par- 
liament with   regard    to   its    own  Act,  which   I  should  have 
thought  was  essentially  a  matter  for  the  judges? — But  is  it, 
when  it  deals  with  ecclesiastical  matters,  with  which  they  were 
not  familiar  ? 

8735.  (Sir  F.  H.  Jeune.)  But  this  is  not  an  ecclesiastical 
matter  at  all.     It  is  a  question  whether  the  Act  of  Parliament, 
according  to  them,  was  made  in  the  second  year,  and  they 
produce  a  quotation  from  a  subsequent  Act  saying   that  the 
Act  was  made  in  the  second  year  ? — They  mean  by  that  that  it 
received  the  Royal  Assent  in  that  year. 

8736.  I  think  so.— They  say  that. 

8737.  (Sir  Lewis  Dibdin.)   That  is  quite   independent  of 
ecclesiastical  matters.      It  happened   to    be    a  matter  about 
ornaments  :  it  might  have  been  about  leather  or  common  rights  ? 
— But  from  my  point  of  view  it  is  very  essential  whether  the 
Act  did  receive  the  Royal  Assent  in  the  second  year  or  the  third 
year.     I  say,  with  all  respect,  that  the  court  was  wrong — that  it 
did  not  receive  the  Royal  Assent  in  the  second  year. 

8738.  And  so  the  ground  upon  which  they  decided  that  falls, 
that  is  your  view  ? — Yes. 

8739.  I  want  to  ask  you  one  word  about  Sandys's  letter.    You 
attach  great  weight  to  Sandys's  letter,  and,  no  doubt,  it  is  a 
point  in  favour  of  the  construction  which  you  are  representing ; 
but  do  you  rely  upon  it  ?     In  your  book  at  page  446  you  refer 
to  Dr.  Sandys's  letter,  and  I  suppose  you  refer  to  the  letter  from 


320  LETTEE  OP  SANDYS 

Dr.  Sandys  to  Parker  which  is  given  in  the  Parker  Correspond- 
ence of  the  Parker  Society  at  page  65  ? — I  have  not  given  the 
reference.  I  have  been  searching  for  it  lately,  and  I  cannot 
find  the  letter. 

8740.  You  will  find  it  in  the  Parker  Correspondence  of  the 
Parker  Society  at  page  65.     In  order  to  get  it  on  the  notes  I 
am  just  going  to  put  the  facts.     That  was  a  letter  written  by  Dr. 
Sandys  to  Parker  just  after  the  Elizabethan  Act  of  Uniformity 
had  got  through  the  House,  and  before  it  had  received  the  Koyal 
Assent,  I  think  ? — Yes. 

8741.  The  important  passage  in  that  letter  is  this,  is  it  not : 
1  The  last  book  of  service  is  gone  through  with  a  proviso  to 
retain  the  Ornaments  which  were  used  in  the  first  and  second 
year  of  King  Edward,  until  it  please  the  Queen  to  take  other 
order  for  them.     Our  gloss  upon  this  text  is  that  we  shall  not 
be  forced  to  use  them,  but  that  others  in  the  meantime  shall 
not  convey  them  away,  but  that   they   may   remain   for   the 
Queen.'     That  is  the  important  extract  ? — Yes. 

8742.  And,  of  course,  it  is  quite  true  that  Sandys  refers  there 
to  the  Ornaments  as  being  those  that  were  used  in  the  first  and 
second  year  ? — Yes. 

8743.  Do  you  attach  much  weight  to  that  as  compared  with 
such  matters  as  the  Acts  of  Parliament,  for  instance,  to  which 
I  have  been  referring  ?    Do  you  think  that  a  letter  written  under 
the  circumstances  in  which  this  was,  before  the  Act  was  printed, 
when  he  had  not  got  access  to  it,  within  forty-eight  hours  of 
its  going  through  Parliament,  and  written,  as  I  observe  he  says 
at  the  end,  '  hastily '  (you  see  the  last  words  are  '  hastily  at 
London,  April  30th,  1559 ')  can  add  very  much  weight  to  it  ? 
— I  do,  because  Sandys  was  a  very  important  man.     He  was 
accepted  by  the  authorities  as  the  most  distinguished  leader 
of  the  Puritan  Party ;  he  was  put  on  the  Committee  for  revising 
the  Second  Prayer  Book,  and  it  is  quite  evident  that  he  watched 
the  whole  process  and  the  steps  of  it. 

8744.  Do  not  you  think  that  even  so  important  a  man  as 
Dr.  Sandys  might  have  made  a  mistake  as  to  the  date  of  an 
Act  of  Parliament  which  had  been  passed  ten  years  before  ? 
The  first  Act  of  Uniformity  was  passed  ten  years  before  he  was 
writing  ? — He  says,  '  The  Parliament  draweth  to  an  end.    The 
last  book  of  Service  is  gone  through  with  a  proviso  to  retain  the 
Ornaments  which  were  used  in  the  first  and  second  year  of 
King  Edward.'     That  is  an  interpretation  clearly  of  the  Orna- 
ments Rubric. 

8745.  It  is  his  representation  of  the  Ornaments  Eubric  which, 
from  the  nature  of  the  case,  could  not  have  been  before  him  ? 
—Why  not? 

8746.  Because  the  Act  was  not  printed ;  it  was  just  through 


LETTEE  OF  SANDYS  321 

the  House  ? — '  The  last  book  of  Service  is  gone  through  with  a 
proviso  to  retain  the  Ornaments ' ;  why  was  it  not  before  him  ? 

8747.  It  had  not  become  an  Act,  and  there  is  no  reason  to 
suppose  that  in  those  days  they  had  the  facilities  that  we  have 
now  of  getting  every  Bill  and  every  amendment  in  print.     The 
Ornaments  Rubric  section  as  you  are  aware  was  an  amendment 
put  in  towards  the  end  of  the  passage  of  the  Act  of  Uniformity? 
—Yes. 

8748.  And  therefore  it  is  in  the  highest  degree  improbable 
that  Sandys,  writing  within  forty-eight  hours  of  the  debate,  and 
before  the  Bill  had  received  the  Eoyal  Assent  and  become  an 
Act,  had  a  copy  of  it  with  this  proviso  in  it  ? — I  should  think 
very  likely  he  had,  because  he  would  be  the  man  of  all  others 
most  anxious  to  get  it.     He  was  strongly  opposed  to  the  proviso 
himself,  and  I  should  think  he  wrote  this  letter  with  a  copy  of 
the  Ornaments  Eubric  before  him. 

8749.  I  will  leave  it  there :  it  seems  to  me  very  improbable. 
There  is  clearly  a  mistake  in  Sandys'  reference,  because  either 
from  your  point  of  view  or  the  received  view,  my  view  I  will 
call  it,  the  first  and  second  year  was  wrong.     It   was  wrong 
either  way,  because  if  it  meant  the  use  in  the  second  year,  then 
that  is  not  the  first  and  second  year,  and  if  it  meant  the  Act  of 
Uniformity  then  that  is  not  the  first  and  second  year.     It  is 
a  wrong  reference  either  way,  is  it  not  ? — I  think  not. 

8750.  '  Which  were  used  in  the  first  and  second  year  of 
King  Edward.' — He  says  '  used.' 

8751.  There  is  nothing  in  the  Ornaments  Eubric  about  the 
first  year? — No,  but  the  Ornaments  of  the  second  year  were 
used  in  the  first  year. 

8752.  But  that  is  not  what  the  Ornaments  Eubric  says  ? — 
No,  it  is  not ;  but  it  implies  it. 

8753.  You  are  relying  upon  this  as  a  statement  of  the 
Ornaments  Eubric  ? — Yes. 

8754.  I  point  out  that  in  any  view  it  is  an  inaccurate  state- 
ment, because  he  speaks  of  the  Ornaments  of  the  first  and 
second  year  when  the  Ornaments  Eubric  only  speaks  of  the 
Ornaments  of  the  second  year  ? — But  it  can  be  proved,  as  I 
think,  that  the  Ornaments  of  the  second  year  were  precisely 
the  Ornaments  of  the  first  year. 

8755.  I  will  not  follow  you  in  that ;  it  may  or  may  not  be 
so.    But  it  is  clearly  an  inaccurate  citation  of  the  Ornaments 
Eubric,  is  it  not  ? — Not  of  its  substance  if,  as  I  think,  the  Orna- 
ments of  the  first  and  second  year  are  the  same. 

8756.  But  is  there  anything  in  the  Ornaments  Eubric  about 
the  first  year  ? — No. 

8757.  Then  if  Sandys  says  the  first  and  second  year  it  is  to 
that  extent  inaccurate  ? — But  he  is  not  quoting  the  rubric ;  he 


322  LETTEE  OP  SANDYS 

is  giving  the  meaning  of  it.     He  does  not  profess  to  quote  the 
words. 

8758.  I  suggest  to  you  that  it  looks  as  if  he  was  referring 
to  some  Act  of  Parliament,  because  that  is  the  way  in  which 
people  refer  to  an  Act  of  Parliament,  but  it  is  not  at  all  the  way 
in  which  people  refer  to   a  date? — What  Act  of  Parliament 
could  he  refer  to  ? 

8759.  I  suggest  that  he  was  thinking  of  the  first  Act   of 
Uniformity  and  made  a  mistake  in  referring  to  it  ? — I  do  not 
think  his  words  bear  out  that  meaning,  if  I  may  say  so  with 
respect. 

8760.  You  agree,  do  you  not,  that '  the  first  and  second  year ' 
looks  like  a  reference  to  an  Act  of  Parliament,  not  to  a  date  ? 
— Very  well. 

8761.  Will  you  take  that ;  do  you  agree  with  me  that  the 
reference  to  the  first  and  second  year  of  King  Edward  in  Sandys' 
letter  looks  as  if  he  was  referring  not  to  a  date,  but  to  some 
Act  of  Parliament  ? — Even  taking  that  view 

8762.  But  may  I  have  an  answer  ?    Do  you  accept  that  or 
not  ? — I  do  not  think  it  follows. 

8763.  You  do  not  think  it  looks  as  if  he  was  referring  to  an 
Act  of  Parliament  when  he  refers  to  the  first  and  second  year  ? 
— No,  '  the  last  book  of  service  is  gone  through  with  a  proviso ' 
(that  means  the  proviso  in  the  book  itself,  does  it  not  ?)  '  to 
retain  the  Ornaments  which  were  used  in  the  first  and  second 
year  of  King  Edward  until  it  pleased  the  Queen  to  take  other 
order  for  them.'     That  is  quoting  the  Act. 

8764.  That  is  quoting  the  Ornaments  Rubric  ? — No,  that  is 
quoting  the  Act  which  sanctions  it. 

8765.  Then  it  is  quoting  it  wrongly,  because  the  Act  says 
nothing  about  the  first  and  second  year  ? — It  does  not.     Sandys 
does  not  profess  to  be  quoting  either  the  Ornaments  Rubric  or 
the  Act  textually.     He  gives  what  he  believes  to  be  the  mean- 
ing of  the  Ornaments  Rubric  combined  with   the  Act  which 
sanctioned  it. 

8766.  Then  he  did  not  mean  a  particular  date? — Yes,  he 
gives  the  date,  the  first  and  second  year. 

8767.  What  date  is  that  ? — The  first  and  second  year. 

8768.  What  date  is  that ;  it  is  two  years  ?— 1548-49. 

8769.  You  think  he  meant  that  ?— Yes. 

8770.  And  that  that  is  his  view  when  he  speaks  about  the 
first  and  second  year — that  he  meant  that  ? — Yes,  he  meant  the 
Ornaments  Rubric  and  the  Act  of  Uniformity  ratifying  it  which 
sanctioned  the  Ornaments  in  use  in  the  second  year  and  in  the 
first  year,  which  were  I  believe  the  same. 

8771.  (Sir  Edward  Clarke.)  Did  you  not  mean  1547-48? 
— Yes ;  1548  is  part  of  the  first  year,  not  the  whole. 


LETTEE  OF  SANDYS  323 

8772.  (Sir  Lewis  Dibdin.)  Is  not  the  whole  of  this  an  illus- 
tration of  what  I  am  putting  to  you ;  is  it  not  an  extraordinary 
way  for  a  man  thinking  of  a  particular  year  to  describe  it  as  the 
first  and  second  year  of  somebody.     He  would  have  said  surely 
1548  or  1547.     '  The  first  and  second  year '  I  suggest  to  you 
looks  as  if  he  was  referring  to  some  Act  of  Parliament  ? — The 
Act  of  Parliament  that  he  refers  to  is  the  Act  of  Uniformity  of 
Queen  Elizabeth ;  he  does  quote  that. 

8773.  That  is  not  the  first  and  second  year  of  King  Edward? 
— No.     I  am  afraid  I  have  not  made  my  meaning  plain.     My 
interpretation  of  Sandys'  letter  is  that  he  understood  the  Orna- 
ments Rubric  with  the  clause  in  the  Act  of  Uniformity  which 
sanctioned  it  to  mean  the  Ornaments  of  the  second  year,  which 
were  the  Ornaments  of  the  first  year. 

8774.  And  you  think  that  is  appropriately  carried  out  by  his 
referring  to  the  Ornaments  of  the  first  and  second  year  ? — Yes ; 
it  would  be  surplusage  in  the  Act  to  refer  to  the  first  year  if 
the  Ornaments  were  the  same  as  in  the  second  year.1 

8775.  (Chairman.)  I  should  just  like  to  ask  you  one  ques- 
tion.    Assuming  your  view  to  be  correct  that  the  words   in 
the  Act  '  in  the  second  year  of  the  reign  of  King  Edward  VI.' 
refer   to   the   words  '  in  use '  rather  than   to   the   words   '  by 
authority  of  Parliament,'  why  should  that  particular  date  have 
been  taken  ?    You  have  just  told  us  that  in  your  opinion  the 
Ornaments  were  the  same  in  the  first  year  as  they  were  in  the 
second  ? — Yes. 

8776.  Why  should  that  particular  date  have  been  taken  in 
this  Act  and  in  the   rubric? — Because   Elizabeth   knew   that 
though  she  tried   hard,  so  it  is  said,  to   introduce   the   First 
Prayer  Book,  she  could  not  do  it,  and  she  allowed  the  Second 
Prayer  Book  with  certain  alterations  to  take  its  place ;  but  as 
Parker  says,  she  told  him  that  she  would  not  have  accepted  that 
compromise  without  the  clause  in  the  Act  of  Uniformity  which 
allowed  her  to  introduce  further  ceremonies  in  the  direction  of 
the  second  year. 

8777.  But  why  should  not  the  Act  have  said  the  first  year  ? 
—Because  there  was  no  specific  Prayer  Book  at  all  in  use 
then ;   the  Order  of  the  Communion  came    into  force  in  the 
second  year,  but  there  was  no  form  of  Common  Prayer  at  all 

1  I  have  discussed  this  question  at  length  in  the  seventh  and  eighth 
chapters ;  but  I  may  here  appeal  to  a  passage  in  Sir  Lewis  Dibdin's  favourite 
authority,  Dr.  Gee  (The  Elizabethan  Prayer  Book,  p.  107) :  '  If,  then, 
Sandys  weighed  his  words  we  must  suppose  that  he  meant  the  year  1548, 
which  was  partly  first  and  partly  second,  since  Edward  began  to  reign  on 
January  28.  In  that  case  Sandys's  explanation  of  the  proviso  is  intelligible. 
The  year  1548  had  its  own  legal  ornaments.'  Sandys  was  perfectly 
accurate.  His  use  of  the  singular  ('  first  and  second  year,'  not  years)  proves, 
indeed,  his  minute  accuracy. 

T  2 


324  ?  MEANING  OF  FIRST  AND  SECOND  YEAR 

then.     Your  point  is,  why  did  she  adopt  the  second  year  instead 
of  the  first  year  ? 

8778.  No,  my  point  is  something  more  than  that.    Assuming 
the  words  to  apply  to  the  use   and  not   to  the   authority   of 
Parliament,   why  was  the   second  year  taken   as   the   date  ? 
— Because  she  wished,  as  I  understand  it,  the  ritual  which 
was  in  use  in  the  second  year  to  be  retained. 

8779.  But  you  have  told  us  that  it  was  the  same  as  the 
ritual  in  the  first  year  and  the  ritual  in  the  third  year  ? — Yes. 

8780.  I  can  quite  understand  why  if  the  words  '  the  second 
year  of  the  reign  of  King  Edward  VI.'  referred  to  the  authority 
of  Parliament  it  was  necessary  to  name  that  particular  year ; 
that  is  another  matter,  of  course.     But  I  want  to  know  why, 
taking  your  view  that  the  words  referred  to  the  use  and  not 
to  the  authority  of  Parliament,  the  second  year  was  taken  ? — 
I  do  not  know  that  I  can  give  any  definite  opinion  as  to  the 
secret  meaning  of  Elizabeth  in  choosing  that  particular  year, 
except  that  the  usage  of  the  second  year  was  well  known.    Her 
Latin  version  of  the  Act  of  Uniformity  uses  the  words  quemad- 
modum  mos  erat — it  was  the  custom  of  the  second  year — it  was 
the  usage  of  the  second  year  ;  that  is  the  Latin  translation. 

8781.  My  point  is  that  the  mention  of  the  second  year  would 
be  to  some  extent  an  argument  in  favour  of  the  view  that  the 
words  '  the  second  year  of  the  reign  of  King  Edward  VI.'  apply 
to  the  words  'authority  of  Parliament,'  unless  there  was  any 
special  reason  for  taking  the  second  year  as  the  time  of  '  use,' 
would  it  not? — I  do  not  know  that  it  would.      The  usage  of 
the  second  year  was  well  ascertained ;  it  was  the  usage  of  the 
Order  of  the  Communion  that  is  prescribed.    You  see  the  first 
Prayer  Book  does  not  prescribe  ;   it  is  not  a  directory  of  public 
worship ;   it  prescribed  certain  vestments.     But  the  Order  of 
the  Communion,  which  was  the  legal  formula  for  the  adminis- 
tration in  the  second  year,  does  prescribe  the  Ornaments  to  be 
used  in  it. 

8782.  (Sir  F.  H.  Jeune.)  I  should  like  to  ask  one  question. 
Whatever  view  is  taken  of  the  rubric,  if  the  view  taken  by  the 
Privy  Council  rightly  or  wrongly  is  correct  as  to  the  Advertise- 
ments of  Queen  Elizabeth,  that  governs  the  matter  whether 
you  take  your  interpretation  of  the  rubric  or  you  take  the  other, 
does  it  not  ? — Yes ;  but  I  do  not  admit  at  all  the  question  of  the 
Advertisements. 

8783.  I  am  not  saying  that  you  do ;  but  if  that  is  so  that 
governs  the  whole  matter  in  any  event  ? — Yes,  it  would  upset 
the  whole  thing.     But  I  contend  that  the  Advertisements  had 
no  legal  force  whatever. 

8784.  I  know  you  do. 

8785.  (Eev.  T.  W.  Drury.)    Merely  as  a  matter  of  accuracy, 


PAELIAMENTAEY  MEANING  OF  'MADE'     325 

did  we  rightly  understand  you  to  say  that  the  vestments  are 
prescribed  by  the  Order  of  Communion  of  1548  ? — No ;  by  the 
First  Prayer  Book  of  Edward  VI.  The  Order  of  Communion 
prescribes  the  ceremonies  used  in  the  Mass  except  the  Elevation : 
it  forbids  the  elevation. 

8786.  (Bev.  Dr.  Gibson.)   Does  it  altogether  forbid  it?— 
I  think  it  does,  although  it  only  mentions  it  on  reconsecration. 

The  Witness  withdrew. 
Adjourned  to  to-morrow  at  half-past  ten  o'clock. 


The  Eev.  CANON  MALCOLM  MACCOLL,  recalled  ;  and 
further  Examined. 

9045.  (Witness.)  May  I  just  offer  a  few  things  supplementary 
to  what  I  said  yesterday  ?     I  sat  up  most  of  the  night  looking 
through  statutes   and  documents,  and  I  think  I  can  confirm 
nearly  all  my  positions  of  yesterday.     With  regard  to  the  first 
and  second  year  and  Sandys'  letter,  I  forgot  to  say  yesterday 
that  Strype  also  makes  the  same  statement.     Here  is  what  he 
says  on  page  122  of  his  '  Annals  of  the  Eeformation,'  Volume  I., 
Part  I.     Without  giving  any  quotation  marks  at  all  he  says : 
'April  was  almost  spent  before  the  divines  had  finished  this 
new  Service  Book,  wherein  was  a  proviso  to  retain  the  orna- 
ments which  were  used  in  the  Church  in  the  first  and  second 
years  of  Bang  Edward  VI.,  until  it  pleased  the  Queen  to  take 
order  for  them.'    He  does  not  put  that  within  marks  of  quotation 
as  if  he  quoted  it  from  Sandys,  but  he  goes  on :  ' "  Our  gloss 
upon  this  text,"  saith  Dr.  Sandys,  in  a  letter  to  Dr.  Parker,  "  is 
that  we  shall  not  be  forced  to  use  them,  but  that  others  in  the 
meantime  shall  not  convey  them   away ;  but  that  they  may 
remain  for  the  Queen."  '     So  far  he  quotes  the  gloss  ;  but  then 
he  adds  :  '  But  this  must  be  looked  upon  as  the  conjecture  of 
a  private  man.'     So  that  Strype  accepts  the  statement  made  by 
Sandys,  but  corrects  him  in  the  gloss  which  he  adds  to  it,  and 
Strype  was  a  careful  writer. 

9046.  (Sir  Lewis  Dibdin.)  Was  he  ? — 

(Witness.)  Then  may  I  add  a  little  more?  I  do  not  think 
that,  partly  through  my  own  fault,  I  made  my  meaning  quite 
clear  with  regard  to  the  meaning  of  the  word  '  made '  yesterday. 
My  point  is  that  '  made '  is  the  proper  expression  to  describe 
the  action  of  Parliament  as  apart  from  that  of  the  King.  All 
Acts  are  made  in  Parliament — in  some  Parliament — but  they 
do  not  become  Acts,  that  is  to  say  they  do  not  become  ope- 
rative, until  they  have  received  the  King's  Assent.  If  I  may 
use  an  illustration,  all  British  men-of-war  are  made  in  some 


326        COSIN  ON  USAGE  OF  SECOND  YEAE 

shipbuilding  yard  or  other,  but  they  do  not  become  men-of- 
war  until  they  have  received  the  King's  Commission ;  yet  after 
they  have  received  the  King's  Commission  it  is  still  quite  accu- 
rate to  say  of  such  and  such  a  man-of-war  that  it  was  '  made ' 
in  such  and  such  a  building  yard.  So  I  say  with  regard  to 
Acts  of  Parliament ;  they  are  all  made  by  Parliament ;  they  are 
all  made  in  Parliament,  and  the  King  has  no  more  to  do  with 
the  making  of  them  than  he  has  to  do  with  the  making  of  a  ship. 

9047.  (Chairman.)   Yes,  he   has,  a  great  deal. — No;  the 
Government  has.     The  Acts  of  Parliament  are  not  operative, 
they  do  not  become  effective,  until  they  have  received  the  Eoyal 
Assent.     Now,  my  point  here  is,  first,  that  all  the  authorities, 
Cosin  among  them,  declare  that  '  by  authority  of  Parliament ' 
refers  to  the  usage  of  the  second  year  and  not  to  the  authority. 
Cosin,  as  you  well  know,  had  most  to  do  with  the  rubric,  as 
it  stands  at  present,  and  he  says  distinctly  that  it  refers  to  the 
usage. 

9048.  (Sir  Lewis  Dibdin.)  What  page  are  you  referring  to  ? 
— Cosin's  works,  Volume  5,  page  440. 

9049.  At  what  page  in  your  book  ? — Page  596.     Cosin  says  : 
'  Among  other  ornaments  of  the  church  also  then  in  use  in  the 
second  year  of  Edward  VI.,  there  were  two  lights  appointed  by 
his  Injunctions  which  Parliament  had  authorised  him  to  make. 
.  .  .  These  lights  were  by  virtue  of  this  present  rubric '  (that 
is,   the  rubric  of    1559).     '  Eef erring  to  what  was  in  use  in 
the  second  year  of  Edward  VI.  afterwards   continued   in  all 
the  Queen's  Chapels  during  her  whole  reign ;  and  so  are  they 
in  the  King's,   and   in  many  cathedral  churches,  besides  the 
chapels  of  divers  noblemen,  bishops  and  colleges,  to  this  day.' 
And  then  he  goes  on  to   add :    '  To  this   head   we  refer  the 
Organ,  the  Font,   the   Altar,  the   Communion  Table  and  the 
Pulpit,  with  the  coverings  and  ornaments  of  them  all ;  together 
with  the  Paten,  Chalice,  and  Corporas  which  were  all  in  use  in 
the  second  year  of  Edward  VI.  by  the  authority  of  the  Acts 
of  Parliament  then  made.'     Now,  Cosin  is  a  great  authority. 
He  had  himself  to  do  with  the  last  revision  of  the  Prayer  Book. 
Then,  in  the  next  place,  I  hold  that  no  Act  of  Parliament  which 
did  not  receive  the  Eoyal  Assent  in  the  second  year  could  be 
described  as  having  the  authority  of  Parliament  in  that  year. 
The  first  Act  of  Uniformity  was  made  in  the  second  year.     It 
was  not  operative  andjtherefore  had  no  authority  till  it  received 
the  King's  Assent  in  the  third  year.     My  points  are  two  :  First, 
that  all  contemporary  authorities  refer  the  '  authority  of  Par- 
liament '  to  the  usage  of  the  second  year  ;  secondly,  that  there 
could  be  no  authority  for  the  Act  of  Uniformity  until  the  third 
year.     Then  I  wish  also  to  add  that  all  contemporary  autho- 
rities declare  that  the  Order  of  the  Communion  rested  on  the 


OBDER  OF  THE  COMMUNION  327 

Act  which  sanctioned  it,  which  sanctioned  the  receiving  of  the 
Sacrament  in  both  kinds.    Dixon  says  so  expressly. 

9050.  (Rev,  Dr.   Gibson.)    Dixon  is  not  a  contemporary 
authority  ? — No  ;    I  beg  your  pardon.     You  have  got  Heylin 
who  says  so. 

9051.  (Sir  Lewis  Dibdin.)  That  you  were  examined  about  ? 
— You  have  Foxe. 

9052.  That  you  were  examined  about  ? — Then  I  must  refer 
you  again  to  the  last  paragraph.     I  do  not  think  I  adequately 
explained  myself  by  not  quoting  (I  had  not  the  words  before 
me)  the  words  of  the  first  Act  of  Edward,  which  orders  each 
parish  priest  in  delivering  the  elements  in  both  kinds  to  use  an 
exhortation.    It  is  to  me  incredible  that  each  parish  priest  should 
be  allowed  to  extemporise  any  exhortation  he  pleased.     But, 
further  than   that,   the   clause   goes   on  to   give   part  of  the 
Exhortation  in  the  Order  of  the  Communion  itself :  it  quotes  it. 
Now  the  Order  of  the  Communion  and  the  Act  which,  as  I  think, 
sanctioned  it,  were  first  of  all  drawn  up  by  Convocation.     The 
Act  was  drawn  up  in  Convocation,  and  introduced  by  Cranmer 
into  Parliament  on  the  3rd  December,  and  it  is  clear  to  me 
that  the  draft  of    the   Order   of  the  Communion  was   before 
Parliament  while  the  Act  was  under  consideration.     The  Act 
quotes  almost  in  the  very  words  part  of  the  Exhortation  in 
the  Order  of  the  Communion. 

9053.  (Chairman.)  You  think  so,  but  where  is  your  proof  ? 
— In  the  words  of  the  Act.     They  quote  ipsissimis  verbis,  with 
two  or  three  alterations,  part  of  the  Order  of  Communion.     The 
Order  is  for  each  curate  to  use  an  exhortation,  and  part  of  the 
Exhortation  is  given  in  the  Act  itself. 

9054.  Will   you   quote  the  Act?— It   is   the   first  Act  of 
Edward  VI.,  chapter  1,  and  the  words  that  I  rely  upon  are 
these  in  the  last    clause :     '  And    when    the    day    prefixed 
cometh ' 

9055.  (Sir  Lewis  Dibdin.)    That  is  in  the  middle  of  the 
sentence.     Will  you  begin   before  that :    '  And  also  that  the 
priest'? — 'And  also  that  the  priest  which  shall  minister  the 
same  shall  at  the  least  one  day  before  exhort  all  persons  which 
shall  be  present  likewise  to  resort  and  prepare  themselves  to 
receive  the  same '   (that  is,  the  Sacrament).     '  And  when  the 
day  prefixed  cometh,  after  a  godly  exhortation  by  the  minister 
made  (wherein  shall  be  further  expressed  the  benefit  and  com- 
fort promised  to  them  which  worthily  receive  the  said  Holy 
Sacrament,  and  danger  and  indignation  of  God  threatened  to 
them  which  shall  presume  to  receive  the  same  unworthily,  to 
the  end  that  every  man  may  try  and  examine  his  own  conscience 
before  he  shall  receive  the  same),  the  said  minister  shall  not, 
without  a  lawful  cause,  deny  the  same  to  any  person  that  will 


328  SIE  EDWAED  CLAEKE  ON 

devoutly  and  humbly  desire  it ;  any  Law,  Statute,  Ordinance, 
or  Custom  contrary  thereto  in  any  wise  notwithstanding.' 

9056.  That  is  the  passage  which  you  suggest  is  a  direct 
reference  to  the  Order  of  Communion  ? — Yes,  because  it  quotes 
part  of  the  phraseology. 

9057.  (Chairman.}  Then  that  will  do  for  that  point? — Then 
with  regard  to  the  32nd  of  Henry  VIII.,  chapter  26,  I  at  once 
accept  the  statement  of  the  lawyers,  that  it  was  repealed  by  the 
Act  of  1  Edward  VI.,  chapter  12. l   At  the  same  time,  I  question 
whether  that  applied  to  the  Order  of  Communion,  because  the 
old  Act  remained  in  force  until  that  Act  (1  Edward  VI.)  was 
passed.    My  point  is  that,  though  that  Act  repealed  henceforward 
32  Henry  VIII.,  it  did  not  repeal  it  until  the  Order  of  Com- 
munion, and  the  Statute  which,  I  believe,  sanctioned  it,  were 
before  Parliament,  and  therefore  the  Order  of  Communion  was 
drawn  up  under  the  authority  of  the  Act  of  Henry  VIII. 

9058.  You  said  that  yesterday,  you  know  ? — Not  that  point. 

9059.  (Sir  Edward  Clarke.)    I  should  like  to  ask  you  a  few 
questions  quite  on  a  different  line  and  apart  from  these  books 
altogether.     Looking  at  the  history  of  the  Anglican  Church, 
would  you  not  expect  to  find  somewhere  a  definite  rule  as  to 
the  ornaments  of  the  Church  and  of  the  ministers  ? — No,  because 
the  Prayer  Book  of  Edward  VI.  was  not  a  directory.     There  is 
no  doubt  that  the  old  ecclesiastical  rule  was  that  the  old  state 
of  things  remained  unless  it  was  expressly  forbidden.     The  rule 
of  Common  Law,  I  suppose,  is  that  things  which  are  not  ordered 
are  forbidden.     The  old  rule  was  that  things  which  were  not 
forbidden  were  allowed. 

9060.  Whatever  the  reason  may  be,  I  will  take  your  answer : 
you  have  told  me  that  you  would  not  expect  to  find  anywhere 
a  definite  rule  as  to  the  ornaments  of  the  ministers  and  of  the 
church  ? — No  ;  they  take  the  old  traditional  custom. 

9061.  Then  how  do  you  explain  the  course  which  has  been 
taken  again  and  again  expressed  in  Acts  of  Parliament  and  in 
the  preface  to  the  Prayer  Book,  of  a  desire  to  secure  uniformity 
of  practice :  does  not  that  involve  the  probability,  at  all  events, 
that  you  would  find  somewhere  a  definite  rule  ? — That  uniformity 
applied  to  the  Service  Books,  not  necessarily  to  the  practice. 
As  a  matter  of  fact,  Grindal 

9062.  Do  not  let  us  go  to  instances.    I  am  going  to  put  my 
questions  very  shortly.     If  you   say  that   the  history  of  the 
Church  is  such  that  you  would  not  expect  to  find  a  definite  rule, 
I  will  take  that  as  your  answer  ? — No ;  I  should  not. 

9063.  Is  there,  in  your  opinion,  any  definite  rule  anywhere 

1  This  was  a  needless  concession,  for  I  claim  to  have  proved  (see 
Chapter  XI.)  that  1  Edward  VI.  c.  12  did  not  repeal  32  Henry  VIII.  c.  26. 


THE  OENAMENTS  EUBEIC  329 

governing  the  ornaments  and  vestments  of  the  Church  and  the 
ministers  ? — I  hold  that  the  Ornaments  Eubric  is  such. 

9064.  You  think  there  is  ? — Yes  ;  the  Ornaments  Eubric. 

9065.  Is  it  to  be  found  in  the  Ornaments  Eubric,  if  anywhere  ? 
— Yes,  since  the  time  of  Edward  VI. 

9066.  But  taking  our  Ornaments  Eubric  as  it  stands  at  the 
present  time,  is  it  there,  if  anywhere,  that  you  will  find  a  definite 
rule  ? — Yes. 

9067.  The  definite  rule  to  be  found  there  would  probably 
be,  would  it  not,  a  definite  rule,  mandatory  and  not  permissive  ? 
There  could  hardly  be  a  definite  rule  if  it  was  permissive  ? — 
Well,  yes  and  no.     At  the  time  of  the  Eeformation  a  minimum 
and  a  maximum  were  allowed.     A  standard  was  adopted  which 
legalised  anything  within  that  standard,  but  something  less  was 
permitted,  because  it  was  very  difficult,  if  not  impossible,  in 
some  cases  to  bring  all  the  clergy  up  to  the  standard. 

9068.  Never  mind  what  was  the  case  at  that  time.     I  want 
to  know  whether  it  is  your  view  that  there  is   any  definite 
mandatory  rule,  or  that  everybody  was  free  to  do  as  he  liked  ? — 
No,  not  everybody  was  free  to  do  as  he  liked.     My  own  view 
is  that  if  the  law,  as  I  hold  it  to  be,  were  admitted,  then  the 
bishop  ought  to  have  very  large  powers. 

9069.  What  power  the  bishop  ought  to  have  in  certain  cases 
has  nothing  to  do  with  the  question  that  I  am  now  putting  to 
you.    I  am  putting  to  you  this  question :  Where,  if  anywhere,  do 
you  find  a  definite  rule  as  to  the  ornaments  and  vestments  ? — 
There  is  no  definite  rule  except  the  Ornaments  Eubric. 

9070.  It  is  to  be  found  in  the  Ornaments  Eubric,  if  any- 
where ? — Yes. 

9071.  Now,  turning  to  the  Ornaments  Eubric :  if  you  say 
that,  it  becomes  a  question  of  interpretation,  and  interpretation 
only  ;  is  not  that  so  ? — Yes. 

9072.  Now  let  us  take  the  Ornaments  Eubric  as  we  have 
it  at  the  present  time  :    '  And  here  is  to  be  noted,  that  such 
ornaments  of  the  Church,  and  of  the  ministers  thereof,  at  all 
times  of  their  ministration,  shall  be  retained,  and  be  in  use, 
as  were  in  this  Church  of  England,  by  the  authority  of  Parlia- 
ment, in  the  second  year  of   the  reign  of   King   Edward  the 
Sixth.'     Just  go  for  a  moment  to  the  words,  '  and  be  in  use, 
as  were  in  this  Church  of  England.'     You   observe  that  the 
phraseology  is  there  altered   from   the   rubric  in   Elizabeth's 
Prayer  Book  ? — Yes. 

9073.  In  Elizabeth's  Prayer  Book  the  words  are  '  as  were 
in  use  by  authority  '  ? — Yes. 

9074.  Have  you  any  suggestion  to  make  as  to  any  reason 
for  the  omission  of  those  words  '  in  use '  ? — Yes ;  it  was  Cosin 
who  drew  up  the  rubric,  and  he  gives  his  reason — namely,  to 


330  SIE  EDWAED  CLAEKB  ON 

bring  the  words  of  the  rubric  more  into  conformity  with  the 
Act. 

9075.  Quite  so.     Then  those  words  '  in  use  '  were  not  found 
in  the  Act  in  the  historic   form   in  which    they  appeared   in 
Elizabeth's  rubric  ? — No. 

9076.  And,  in  order  to  prevent  misunderstanding,  perhaps, 
Cosin  drew  the  rubric  up  in  the  terms  of  the  Act  itself  ? — Yes, 
he  himself  insisting  that  it  meant  '  were  in  use.' 

9077.  Never  mind ;  it  is  quite  indifferent  to  me  what  he  did 
or  said.1     Now  we  have  this  rubric,  and  we  have  to  construe 
it,  you  see.     I  will  come  to  the  question  of  intention  later  on. 
Then  the  rubric  retains  the  things  which  '  were  in  this  Church 
of  England  by  the  authority  of  Parliament  in  the  second  year 
of  the  reign  of  King  Edward  the  Sixth  '  ? — Yes. 

9078.  Now,  apart  from  the  question   of  user,  that  clearly 
points  to  some  authority  of  Parliament — to  some  Act  of  Par- 
liament ? — Yes. 

9079.  What  do  you  say  is  the  Act  of  Parliament  which  is 
there  referred  to? — I   say  that   the  Act  of   Parliament  there 
referred  to  is  the  Act  which  sanctioned  the  Communion  in  both 
kinds  and  authorised,  as  I  believe,  the  Order  of  Communion  at 
the  same  time. 

9080.  Let  us  just  see  how  it  would  read  according  to  you. 
According   to   your  construction  this  rubric   might  read :  '  as 
were  in  this  Church  of  England  by  the  authority  of  Parliament 
given  in  the  first  year  of  Edward  VI.,  chapter  I.'     Is  that  the 
Statute  which  you  purpose  to  substitute  for  the  one  with  which 
we  are  dealing  ? — Yes ;  I  say  it  rests  upon  that  Statute,  and  (as 
Cosin  maintained)  on  the  Statute  revived,  the  25th  Henry  VIII., 
chapter  19.     Cosin  quotes  that  also.     Sir  Lewis  Dibdin  said 
that  that  Statute  merely  quoted  the  old  provincial  Synodals, 
but  I  maintain  that  the  Statute  itself  gives  statutory  authority 
by  sanctioning  the  old  Synodals,  and  I  submit  respectfully  that 
the  32nd  Henry  VIII.,  chapter  26,  was  not  repealed  when  the 
Order  of  Communion  was  before  Parliament.   It  has  thus  a  three- 
fold statutory  authority. 

9081.  You  say,  then,  things  that  were  in  the  Church  by  the 
authority  of  Parliament  given  in  three  Statutes,  not  in  one  ? — 
Yes ;  three  Statutes. 

9082.  Which  are  the  three  Statutes  ?— The  first  is  1  Edward 
VI.,  chapter  1 ;  the  next  is  25  Henry  VIII.,  chapter  19 ;  and 
the  third  is  32  Henry  VIII.,  chapter  26,  which  authorised  Con- 
vocation to  draw  up  religious  rites  and  ceremonies ;  and  they 
did  draw  them  up,  and  the  Bill  before  Parliament  for  sanctioning 

1  Is  not  this  a  rather  strange  remark  ?     Surely  the  interpretation  of  the 
rubric  by  the  man  who  framed  it  ought  to  have  some  weight. 


THE  OENAMENTS  EUBRIC  331 

the  Order  of  Communion  first  passed  through  Convocation  and 
then  was  introduced  into  Parliament  by  Cranmer. 

9083.  I  only  wanted  to  get  quite  clearly,  and  I  think  I  have 
got  it  now,  your  view  as  to  the  Parliamentary  authority  which 
is  referred  to  in  the  rubric  ? — Yes. 

9084.  A  question  was  asked  you  by  Sir  Michael  yesterday 
as  to  any  suggestions  that  you  had  to  make  for  the  mention 
of  '  the  second  year  of  the  reign  of  King  Edward  VI.'     If  the 
Parliamentary  authority  which  was  mentioned  in  the  rubric  was 
to  be  the  Parliamentary  authority  of  the  three  Statutes  which 
you  have  named,  it  would  be  more  natural  to  say  the  first  of 
Edward  VI.  than  the  second  of  Edward  VI.  ? 1 — Well,  I  do  not 
know.     Things  were  in  a  transition  state  then.     Henry  VIII. 
appointed  a  Committee  to  revise  all  the  services.     That  Com- 
mittee sat,  and  under  that  authority,  for  instance,  immediately 
after  Edward  VI.  came  to  the  throne,  it  produced  the  Compline 
in  English  and  a  good  many  other  things  in  English  besides — 
the  Processional,  for  example.     Things  were  in  a  state  of  transi- 
tion, and  they  settled  down  after  the  Order  of  Communion 
became  law. 

9085.  But  if  things  were  in  a  state  of  transition,  it  was  all 
the  more  important  that  there  should   be   quite  a  clear  and 
definite  year  given,  as  the  year  to  which  to  refer  ? — The  year 
was  the  second  year.     The  Order  of  Communion  came  into  use 
practically  in  the  second  year.     Parliament  ended,  did  it  not, 
on  the  23rd  December  in  Edward's  first  year?     The  Order  of 
Communion  became  law  about  that   time,  and  the  Order  of 
Communion  settled  the  ceremonial  which  came  into  legal  use  in 
the  second  year  :  and  that  is  why  the  second  year  is  referred  to. 

9086.  The  Order  of  Communion  settled  the  ceremonial,  you 
say  ? — Yes. 

9087.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  has  not  the  interpretation — the 
unbroken  interpretation — of  the  Ornaments  Rubric  up  to  the  last 
few  years  been  the  reference  of  that  authority  of  Parliament  to 
the  Statute  of  the  second  of  Edward  VI.? — I  do  not  know. 
Has  it  ? 

9088.  Let  me  put  this  to  you  again.     The  Statute  which 
you  say  was  not  assented  to  by  the  King  until  the  third  year  of 
Edward  VI.  is  referred  to  in  an  Act  of  Parliament  as  being  a 
Statute  made  in  the  second  year  of  Edward  VI.  ? — Yes,  that  is 
quite  accurate. 

9089.  What  authority  have  you  for  saying  that  the  Royal 

1  But  the  second  year  was  partly  first  also.  My  contention  is  that  the 
rubric  and  its  covering  statute  refer  to  the  usage  of  the  second  year,  which 
was  both  first  and  second.  The  Act  (1  Edward  VI.)  was  passed  in  the  first 
year,  but  the  Order  of  the  Communion,  which  prescribed  the  usage,  did  not 
come  into  operation  till  the  second  year. 


332  ASSENT  BY  EOYAL  COMMISSION 

Assent  was  not  given  until  the  third  year  ? — Briefly  this  ;  in  the 
first  place  the  Eoyal  Assent  determined  Parliament  when  it  was 
given  ;  the  Session  came  to  an  end. 

9090.  Oh,  no? — Pardon  me,  I   have    gone   through  every 
Statute  from  that  time  to  the  reign  of  Charles  II.,  and  I  find 
that  in  every  single  case  where  the  King  sanctioned  a  Statute 
by  Commission  a  provision  was  made  for  Parliament  still  con- 
tinuing.    The  formal  way  of  giving  the  Eoyal  Assent  to  an 
Act  by  Commission  was  by  Letters  Patent,  and  both  Houses 
of  Parliament  were  present  when  it  was  done  and  the  Session 
was  determined  then  and  there,  unless  a  provision  was  made  to 
the  contrary. 

9091.  But  you  do  not  dispute,  do  you,  that  for  centuries 
past  the  Assent  of  the  Crown  has  been  given  by  Commission 
to  Acts  of  Parliament,  without  putting  an  end  to  the  Parliament  ? 
The  Commission  l  may  have  provided  for  the  continuance  of  Par- 
liament, but  at  all  events  Parliament  has  continued  to  sit  after 
the  time  when  the  Assent  has  been  given  to  an  Act  of  Par- 
liament ? — Yes.     Sir  Erskine  May  says  in  his  '  Parliamentary 
Practice '  that  the  rule  lasted  till  two  hundred  years  ago.    What 
he  says  is  this :  '  The  idea  that  a  Session  was  concluded  by  the 
Eoyal  Assent  being  signified  to  a  Bill  ceased  to  exist  more  than 
two  centuries  ago." 

9092.  He  does  not  say  that  it  existed  till  then  ;  he  says  that 
it  ceased  to  exist  more   than  two  centuries  ago  ? — Then  may 
I  refer  you  to  my  book,  page  617  :'  After  the  Eoyal  Assent  was 
given  to  1  Car.  I.,  chapter  7,  we  read  as  follows :  "  This  Session 
of  Parliament  (by  reason  of  the  increase  of  sickness  and  other 
inconveniences  of  the  season,  requiring  a  speedy  adjournment) 
nevertheless  shall  not  determine  by  His  Majesty's  Eoyal  Assent 
to  this  and  some  other  Acts."  '     Then  again  :  '  At  the  opening 
of  the  first  Parliament  after  the  Eestoration  an  Act  was  passed 
to  undo  the  Parliamentary  irregularities  of  the  Commonwealth. 
The  Eoyal  Assent  was  necessary  at  once,  and  it  was  given  with 
the   following  proviso :    "  Provided   always,  and   it   is   hereby 
enacted,  that  His  Majesty's  Eoyal  Assent  to  this  Bill  shall  not 
determine  this  present  Session  of  Parliament."  '    And  then  again 
in  22  and  23  Charles  II. ,  chapter  1,  '  The  Eoyal  Assent  was 
given  in  the  beginning  of  the  Session  to  "an  Act  to  prevent 
malicious  maiming  and  wounding  "  ;  and  to  prevent  the  Session 
from  being  closed  thereby  there  follows  the  proviso  :  "  Provided 
always,   and   it    is    hereby   declared   and    enacted,   that    His 
Majesty's  Eoyal  Assent  to  this  Bill  shall  not  determine  this 
Session  of  Parliament."  '     I  have  gone   through  every  single 
Statute  from  Henry  VIII.  to  Charles  II.,  and  I  find  that  when 

1  It  was  not  the  Commission  which  provided,  but  Parliament. 


ENDED  THE   SESSION  333 

the  Eoyal  Assent  was  given  by  Eoyal  Commission  provision 
was  made  for  the  Session  continuing. 

9093.  When  was  the  Eoyal  Assent  given  to  this  Bill  ? — On 
the  14th  of  March  of  the  third  year.     There  is  a  list  given  of 
sixty  Bills,  I  think,  which  received  the  Eoyal  Assent,  and  the 
Act  of  Uniformity  stands  at  the  head  of  them. 

9094.  March  the  14th  of  the  third  year  ?— Yes. 

9095.  But  where  is  the  list  ? — I  copied  it  from  the  House 
of  Lords'  Journals. 

9096.  (Sir  Lewis  Dibdin.)  But  I  think  you  are  aware  that 
in  the  originals  of  the  journals  there  is  such  a  list  at  the  end 
of  every  Session,  is  there  not  ? — I  only  quoted  the  published 
copies. 

9097.  I  have  looked  at  the  originals.     You  will  perhaps  take 
it  from  me  that  at  the  end  of  every  Session  of  Parliament  in 
those  days  there  was  a  list  of  Acts  passed  during  the  Session  ? — 
Yes,  I  accept  it  from  you,  of  course. 

9098.  Will  you   take   this  further,  that   in  this  particular 
Session  the  list  of  Acts  for  the  Session  begins  on  a  fresh  page 
and  there  is  no  indication  of  date  whatever  as  to  the  Eoyal 
Assent  ?  1 — No  indication  of  date  in  any  of  them  ?  But  remember 
this,  the  second  year  came  to   an  end   on  January  27.     The 
giving  of  the  Eoyal  Assent  to  the  Act  of  Uniformity  required  a 
great  deal  of  formality  ;  it  required  Letters  Patent  and  a  Com- 
mission, and  it  was  to  be  done  in  the  presence  of  both  Houses 
of  Parliament.     Now,  I  maintain  that  there  was  not  time  for 
all  that,  and  that  if  it  did  happen  there  would  be  some  record  of 
it.     Edward  VI.  keeps  a  record  of  the  second  year,  and  he  men- 
tions various  things,  but  he  never  refers  to  that  at  all  though 
it  would  have  been  the  most  important  event  of  that  year. 

9099.  (Sir  Edward  Clarke.)    Who   never   refers  to   it?— 
Edward  VI.  in  his  diary. 

9100.  Are  you  really  arguing  that  this  Act  cannot  have 
received  the  Eoyal  Assent  in  the  second  year,  because  you  do 
not  find  it  entered  in  Edward  VI.'s  diary  ? — No ;  because  that 
passage  from  Edward  VI.'s  diary  has  been  quoted  judicially  to 
show  that  it  received  the  Eoyal  Assent  in  the  second  year. 

9101.  I  understand  that  your  point  upon  this  is,  that  the 
Eoyal  Assent  given  to  the  Bill  would  put  an  end  to  the  Session 
unless  provision  were  made  for  continuing  the  Session  ? — Yes, 
that  is  one  point. 

9102.  And  that  you  have  no  record  anywhere  of  the  date 
upon  which  the  Eoyal  Assent  was  given  to  this  Bill  ? — Except 
that  it  is  in  the  list  of  the  sixty  Bills  which  did  receive  the 
Eoyal  Assent  in  the  third  year. 

1  This  is  a  mistake.    The  General  Pardon  Act,  which  is  one  of  them 
gives  the  date  of  March  14. 


334  SIE  EDWAED  CLAEKE  ON 

9103.  But  no  record  as  to  the  specific  date  on  which  they 
received  the  Eoyal  Assent  ? — Yes,  the  14th  March  in  the  third 
year. 

9104.  (Sir  Lewis  Dibdin.)  But  there  is  no  date  on  the  list  ? — 
There  is  in  the  list  in  the  journals  that  I  have  read. 

9105.  No  ?— Pardon  me. 

9106.  (Sir  Edward  Clarke.)  This  is  a  question  of  fact.    You 
find  the  Act  in  a  list  with  regard  to  which  you  suggest  that  there 
is  a  date  showing  the  date  at  which  each  of   those  Statutes 
received  the  Eoyal  Assent  ? — The  whole  list  is  put  under  the 
date  of  March  the  14th  in  the  third  year. 

9107.  (Sir  Lewis  Dibdin.)  Are  you  referring  to  the  original 
or    the    printed    journal? — I    am    referring    to    the    printed 
journal. 

9108.  That  is  in  George  III.'s  reign  ?  l— Yes. 

9109.  (Sir  Edward  Clarke.)  That  is  very  much  later  indeed. 
I  only  want  to  get  from  you  what  you  say  is  the  evidence  that 
will  establish  that  this  Act  did  not  have  the  Eoyal  Assent  in  the 
second  year.    Is  that  your  evidence  ? — Yes,  my  evidence  is  two- 
fold :   First,  that  there  was  no  time  for  all  the  formalities  of  a 
Commission,  Letters  Patent,  and  both  Houses  of  Parliament 
being  present  in  the  course  of  two  or  three  days,  and  in  the 
second  place  that  it  would  have  determined  the  Session  unless 
provision  was  made  to  the  contrary. 

9110.  And  as  you  do  not  find  anything  about  the  provision 
you  assume  that  the  Eoyal  Assent  was  not  given  ? — Yes. 

9111.  The  Ornaments  Eubric,  as  we  have  got  it,  is  the  rubric 
of  1662  ?— Yes. 

9112.  Can  you  point  out  to  me  any  suggestion  by  anybody 
within  200  years  after  that  time,  that  the  Parliamentary  authority 
mentioned  in  the  Ornaments  Eubric  was  not  the  authority  of 
that  Act  of  2nd  Edward  VI.  ?    I  will  make  myself  quite  clear. 
The  Ornaments  Eubric  has  got  a  reference  to  the  authority  of 
Parliament  ? — Yes. 

9113.  And  to  the  second  year  of  the  reign  of  King  Edward  VI.? 
— Yes. 

9114.  Can  you  point  out  to  me  any  suggestion  by  anybody 
for  200  years  after  that  rubric  was  drawn  up  that  the  authority 
of  Parliament  referred  to  any  Statute  other  than  that  which  we 
know  as  the  2nd  of  Edward  VI.  ? — Cosin  ;  and  Sandys  who 
was  a  contemporary  ;  and  Strype,  I  think.    Fuller  and  Hayward 
in  his  Life  of  Edward  VI.  and  Heylin  all  claim  the  authority 
of  Parliament  for  the  Order  of  the  Communion  and  therefore 
exclude  any  other. 

1  But  one  of  the  Acts  on  the  list  gives  the  date  of  March  14  of  the  third 
year.  It  is  for  the  objectors  to  prove  that  the  other  Acts  on  the  list,  or  any 
of  them,  did  not  get  the  Boyal  Assent  on  the  same  day. 


THE  OENAMENTS  RUBRIC  335 

9115.  Forgive  me,  I  do  not  think  that  really  meets  the  ques- 
tion.    Your  point  is  that  the  things  were  to  be  retained  and 
were  to  be  in  use  which  were  lawfully  used  in  the  second  year 
of  Edward  VI.  ?— Yes. 

9116.  That  implies  both  user  and  authority  of  Parliament 
given  l  at  some  time  or  other  in  the  second  year  of  Edward  VI.  ? 
— Not  necessarily. 

9117.  Where  do  you  find  the  first  suggestion,  or  do  you 
find  any  suggestion  for  200  years  after  the  Ornaments  Rubric, 
that  the  authority  of  Parliament  in  the  second  year  of  the  reign 
of  King  Edward  VI.  did  not  mean  this  Statute  ? — It  is  impossible 
to  prove  a  negative.    I  do  not  know  of  any  distinct  suggestion. 

9118.  I  am  not  asking  you  to  prove  a  negative.    I  am  asking 
you  for  an  instance  of  the  contention  anywhere  ? — I  am  afraid 
I  did  not  make  myself  understood.    I  find  writers  contemporary 
and  subsequent  to  the  Act  claiming  authority  of  1st  Edward  VI. 
for  the  usage  of  the  second  year  and  if  they  claim  that  authority 
it  excludes  subsequent  authorities. 

9119.  But  do  you  observe  that  the  point  which  you  are  now 
putting  is  one  which  makes  the  rubric   absolutely  obscure : 
because  if  the  Act  came  into  force  in  the  second  year  of  Edward 
you  would  have  a  legal  use  of  one  kind  in  the  first  part  of  the 
year,  and  a  legal  use  of  another  kind  in  the  subsequent  part  of 
the  year  ? — I  do  not  understand.     I  do  not  see  the  point. 

9120.  Supposing  that  the  Act  of  Parliament  to  which  we  are 
referring  came  into  force  in  the  middle  of  the  second  year  of 
Edward,  to  which  part  of  the  year  would  the  rubric  refer  ? — But 
it  came  into  force  in  the  beginning  of  the  second  year.    The  Act 
was  passed,  I  think,  on  the  23rd  December  of  the  first  year.    I 
do  not  know  when  it  received  the  Royal  Assent.    It  may  not 
have  received  it  until  the  beginning  of  the  second  year. 

9121.  But  you  are  speaking  now  of  the  Act  of  1  Edward  VI.  ? 
—Yes,  the  Act  of  1  Edward  VI.  passed  Parliament  in  the  end 

of  the  first  year. 

9122.  Let  me  try  and  get  at  the  point  by  another  mode.    You 
said  yesterday  that  the  question  of  the  meaning  of  the  words 
'  the  second  year '  had  not  been  raised,  and  it  was  pointed  out 
to  you  that  in  Westerton  v.  Liddell  the  question  was  raised  and 
argued,  and  that  that  very  authoritative  court  came  to  the  un- 
hesitating conclusion  that  this  Act  of  Parliament  was  passed 
and  completed  in  the  second  year  and  was  the  Act  referred  to 
here  ? — I  think  that  the  point  which  was  raised  was,  whether 
the  first  Act  of  Uniformity  received  the  Royal  Assent  in  the 
second  year. 

9123.  That  question  was  raised,  and  the  Court  distinctly 

1  It  does  not  follow  that  the  authority  of  Parliament  was  '  given '  in  the 
second  year.    It  may  have  been  given  previously. 


336  SIR  EDWARD  CLARKE  ON 

said  that  they  came  to  the  conclusion  that  it  did. — Was  that 
particular  point  raised  whether  it  received  the  Royal  Assent  ? 

9124.  Yes.     Let  me  refer  you  to  page  160  of  the  judgment : 
'  It  was  urged  at  the  Bar  that  the  present  rubric,  which  refers 
to  the  second  year  of  Edward  the  Sixth,  cannot  mean  Orna- 
ments mentioned  in  the  First  Prayer  Book,  because,  as  it  is 
said,  that  Act  was  probably  not  passed,  and  the  Prayer  Book 
was  certainly  not  in  use  till  after  the  expiration  of  the  second 
year  of  Edward  the  Sixth,  and  that  therefore  the  words  "  by 
authority  of  Parliament"  must  mean  by  virtue  of  canons  or 
Royal  Injunctions  having  the  authority  of  Parliament  made  at 
an  earlier  period.     There  seems  no  reason  to  doubt  that  the 
Act  in  question  received  the  Royal  Assent  in  the  second  year 
of  Edward  the  Sixth.     It  concerned  a  matter  of  great  urgency 
which  had  been  long  under  consideration,  and  was  the  first  Act 
of  the  Session  ;  it  passed  through  one  House  of  Parliament  on 
January  the  15th,  1549,  N.S.,  and  the  other  on  the  21st  of  the 
same  month ;   and  the  second  year  of  the  reign  of  Edward  the 
Sixth  did  not  expire  till  January  the  28th.     In  the  Act  of  the 
5th  and  6th    Edward   the  Sixth,    chapter  1,  section  5,  it   is 
expressly  referred  to  as  the  Act  "  made  in  the  second  year  of 
the  King's  Majesty's  reign."     Upon  this  point,  therefore,  no 
difficulty  can  arise  '  ? — Well,  I  very  respectfully  maintain  that 
the  Court  made  a  historical   mistake.     The  Act   could  not,  I 
maintain,  have  received  the  Royal  Assent  in  the  time. 

9125.  I  am  quite  content  to  leave  that.     Now  then,  in  the 
year  1662,  when  the  present  Ornaments  Rubric  was  framed,  if 
your  contention  were  correct  that  rubric  would  have  the  effect 
of  not  only  permitting  but  obliging  the  use  of  vestments  ? — Yes. 

9126.  And  that  is  your  view  of  it  ? — In  strict  legal  language, 
I  suppose  it  would. 

9127.  We  are  interpreting  now  the  law  which  you  believe 
to  have  been  laid  down  ? — Yes. 

9128.  And  you  believe  that  the  law  which  had  been  laid 
down  was  that  these  vestments  must  be  used  ? — Yes. 

9129.  You  put  a  good  deal  of  weight  yesterday  upon  what 
you  supposed  to  be  the  intentions  of  Queen  Elizabeth.     Do  you 
suggest  that  it  was  the  intention  of  those  who  were  responsible 
for  the  rubric  of  1662  to  make  a  law  to  oblige  every  clergyman 
to  use  vestments  which  had  been   disused   for   more  than  a 
century  ? — My  answer  to  that  is  that  the  intention  of  Elizabeth 
was  to  lay  down  a   standard  which  would  be  the   standard 
towards  which  all  should  aspire  ;  but  the  Advertisements  came 
forth  in  order  to  allow  of  a  relaxation  of  the  standard  where  it 
was  impossible  to  enforce  it. 

9130.  Forgive  me,  you  are  going  back  to  the  time  of  the 
issue  of  the  Advertisements.     I  am  at  the  year  1662  when, 


THE  OKNAMENTS  EUBEIC  337 

according  to  you,  a  law  is  made  that  the  clergy  shall  wear 
these  vestments,  which  had  been  so  long  disused.  Do  you 
believe  that  it  was  the  intention  of  the  persons  who  were 
responsible  for  the  Act  of  1662  and  the  rubrics  in  the  Prayer 
Book  to  enforce  the  wearing  of  sacrificial  vestments  ? — So  far 
as  it  was  possible — yes.  But  recollect  if  you  press  that  argu- 
ment that  you  are  landed  in  this  difficulty  ;  all  the  Courts 
admit  that  the  cope  was  within  the  compass  of  that  rubric. 

9131.  I  assure  you  that  I  do  not  find  any  difficulty  about 
the  cope. — But  it  was  not  enforced.     The  Court  in  the  Purchas 
Case  declared  the  cope  was  obligatory,  but  as  a  matter  of  fact  it 
was  not  enforced. 

9132.  Forgive  me,  the  cope  is  a  different,  and  I  should  say 
a  very  much  smaller  question  with  regard  to  cathedrals,1  but  I  am 
speaking  now  of  the  mass  of  the   parish  clergy.      Is  it  your 
suggestion  that  the  intention  of  the  people  who  framed  the  Act 
of  Uniformity  of  1662  and  the  rubrics  of  the  Book  was  to  make 
all  parish  priests  wear  a  chasuble? — Where  it  was  possible.' 
It  was  not  possible  to  make  them  wear  a  surplice. 

9133.  You  are  facing  the  difficulty  and  accepting  it;    you 
say  that  it  was  their  intention  to  make  it  obligatory  wherever 
possible  ? — Yes. 

9134.  And  to  oblige,  so  far  as  it  was  possible,  all  the  parish 
priests  in  the  country  to  supply  themselves  afresh  with  vest- 
ments similar  to  those  which  had  been  destroyed  a  century 
before? — No,  they  were  not  obliged  to  supply  themselves ;  that 
is  the  point.     The  parish  was  obliged. 

9135.  So  far  as  it  was  possible,  I  said  ? — But  they  were  not 
obliged  at  all  to  supply  themselves ;  they  were  not  bound  by 
law  to  supply  themselves  with  those  vestments,  or  chalices,  or 
patens,  or  anything  of  the  sort ;    it  was  not  part  of  the  duty  of 
the  parish  priest.      The  parish  was  legally  obliged  to  provide 
him  with  a  surplice,  but  nothing  else.     All  the  other  vestments 
had  been  destroyed,  and  it  would  have  been  very  hard  upon 
the  parish  clergy  to  oblige  them  to  purchase  them. 

9136.  Very  hard   indeed,  and   a  most  extraordinary  obli- 
gation to  put  upon  the  parish  or  the  parish  priest  ? — Yes,  but 
only  when  possible. 

9137.  Do  you  really  suggest  that  the  intention  was  to  set  up 
the  standard — that  is  to  say,  that  people  who  could  get,  either  at 
their  own  expense  or  by  the  generosity  of  others,  these  vest- 
ments, were  to  wear  them  ? — Yes. 

9138.  Is  there  an  instance  of  any  one  of  the  persons  who 
were  responsible  for  the  terms  of  the  rubric  and  of  the  Act, 
actually  wearing  a  chasuble  at  any  time  after  1662  ? — I  do  not 

1  But  one  of  the  mistakes  of  the  Purchas  judgment  was  to  restrict  the 
cope  to  cathedrals.    There  is  no  authority  whatever  for  such  restriction. 


338  SIE  EDWAED  CLAEKE  ON 

know ;  but  I  know  that  in  the  time  of  Laud,  Montague  and 
other  bishops  they  found  it  impossible  to  enforce  the  surplice. 

9139.  I  am  asking  you,  simply  as  a  question  of  fact,  is  there 
any  reason  that  you  know  of  to  believe  that  any  one  of  the  per- 
sons who  were  responsible  for  these  things  complied  with  the 
obligation,  which,  according  to  you,  they  were  throwing  upon 
every  parish  priest  who  could  afford  it  or  get  the  vestments  ? — 
But  how  could  they  ? 

9140.  Did  they  ? — Because  the  bishops  were  not  bound  to 
supply  vestments,  nor  were  the  clergy  themselves. 

9141.  Do  you  really  think  that  that  is  an  answer  ? — Yes,  I  do. 

9142.  Were  not  the  people  responsible  for  this,   many  of 
them  priests  of   quite  sufficient  wealth  to  supply  themselves 
with  the  proper  vestments  to  be  used  in  Divine  worship? — I 
do  not  know  whether  they  did  or  did  not.     We  have  no  record 
that  they  did  not. 

9143.  But  have  you  any  suggestion  that  they  did ;  have 
you  any  suggestion  to  make,  founded  on  any  bit  of  history  or 
found  in  any  diary  or  anywhere  to  show  that  any  one  of  them 
wore  a  chasuble  ? — Not  at  the  present  moment,  but  I  do  not 
think  it  is  possible  to  produce  evidence.     The  evidence  did  not 
exist. 

9144.  But,  forgive  me,  do  you  suggest  that  the  interpretation 
of  the  rubric  which  you  are  now  maintaining  was  the  inter- 
pretation which  was  understood  by  the  persons  at  the  time  the 
rubric  was  found  ? — Yes.     May  I  say,  in  answer  to  your  pre- 
vious question,  that  I  find  in  various  entries  in  parishes  that 
a  chasuble  is  mentioned  among  the  goods  of  the  church. 

9145.  In  what  year  ? — There  were  entries  certainly  in  Eliza- 
beth's reign. 

9146.  That  is  going  far  away ;  that  has  nothing  to  do  with 
it.    I  am  at  the  time  of  1662.    Do  you  suggest  to  the  Com- 
mission that  any  of  the  people  who  had  anything  to  do  with 
this  in  1662  attached  to  the  rubric  the  meaning  which  you 
attach  to  it  ? — Certainly  ;  Cosin  attached  that  meaning  to  it,  for 
he  says  so,  and  he  drew  up  the  rubric. 

9147.  You  see  that  the  position  which  was  established  in 
1662,  if  you  are  right,  was  that  it  was  the  duty,  so  far  as  it  was 
possible,  of  the  parish  priests  to  wear  these  vestments  ? — Yes. 

9148.  You  have  got  no  instance  of  parish  priests  doing  it  ? 
—No ;  but   may  I  say  that  it  was  after  the  Commonwealth 
when   the  Prayer  Book    and    everything   connected   with  the 
Church  service  was  swept  clean  away,  and  it  would  have  been 
impossible,  except  very  gradually,  to  restore  anything.     It  was 
impossible  to  restore  the  Daily  Service  and  it  never  was  gene- 
rally restored,  though  it  is,  no  doubt,  prescribed,  and  is  not  now 
restored  throughout  England.     Yet  it  is  obligatory. 


THE  OENAMENTS  EUBEIC  339 

9149.  You  say  that  it  would  have  been  very  difficult  to 
carry  it  out  ? — Impossible. 

9150.  Let  that  be  so ;  that  would  make  it  more  remarkable 
that  a  law  should  be  enacted  which  the  people  who  enacted  it 
must  have  known   could   not  be  carried  out? — Which   could 
not  have  been  carried  out  then. 

9151.  You  say  it  could  not  have  been  carried  out  then  for 
obvious  reasons.     Have  you  any  instance  of  a  complaint  being 
made   against  any  clergyman  for  not  wearing  the  vestments 
which  you  say  were  prescribed  by  this  rubric? — I  have  not, 
nor  have  I  of  any  complaint  made  of  their  using  them. 

9152.  Of  course  you  have  not,  because  they  were  never  used. 
— That  is  the  question. 

9153.  Forgive  me,  you  put  in  '  That  is  the  question '  as  if 
it  was  a  matter  upon  which  the  evidence  was  doubtful.     I  put 
it  to  you  again.     After  1662,  can  you  point  to  any  evidence 
of  a  parish  priest  using  a  chasuble  in  the  ministrations  of  the 
Church  for  the  time  of  two  centuries? — I  answer,  can  any  case 
be  produced  ? 

9154.  No,  that  is  not  an  answer.     It  is  quite  a  simple  ques- 
tion.    Let  me  put  it  again :  Have  you  got  any  evidence  what- 
ever of  any  sort  or  kind  that  during  two  centuries,  after  1662, 
any  parish  priest  in  England  used  a  chasuble? — No,  not  on 
the  spur  of  the  moment. 

9155.  But  you  have  given  a  great  deal  of  attention  to  this 
subject  ? — Yes,  I  have ;  but  I  maintain  that  you  are  asking  for 
evidence  which  is  not  procurable.1 

9156.  But  this  is  a  matter  which  certainly  would  be  of  im- 
portance.    There  were  a  very  large  number  of  the  clergy,  and 
I  daresay  at  that  time,  as  now,  there  were  different  opinions 
among  them  with  regard  to  the  Sacrament? — But  there  were 
no  newspapers  to  publish  these  things,  and  there  are  no  detailed 
records  left. 

9157.  Of  course  there  could  be  plenty  of  records  in  Church 
accounts  and  the  like,  but  that  does  not  matter.     I  will  pass 
from  that.     I  am  quite  content  to  take  your  answer  as  to  a 
matter  of  fact,  you  know.     You  used  just  now  a  word  in  an 
answer  that  this  would  come  '  gradually '  ? — Yes. 

9158.  I  suppose  suggesting  that  in  the  then  condition  of  the 
Church  you  could  not  expect  everybody  to  take  to  vestments 
at  once  ? — Quite  so. 

The  Witness  withdrew. 
Adjourned  to  Thursday  next,  at  half-past  One  o'clock. 

1  I  give  evidence  in  another  part  of  this  volume,  where  I  have  made  a 
general  answer  to  Sir  Edward  Clarke's  questions. 

z  2 


340          ELIZABETH'S  INTENTION  IN   1559 


The  Eev.  CANON  MALCOLM  MAcCoLL,  D.D.,  recalled ;  and 
further  Examined. 

9859.  (Mr.  Prothero.)  I  think  in  your  former  evidence  you 
quoted  a  remark  of  Queen  Elizabeth  to  De  Feria  to  the  effect 
that  she  was  anxious  to  restore  religion  as  it  had  been  in  her 
father's  day? — Yes,  at  the  death  of  her  father.     I  quoted  from  a 
little  octavo  volume  by  Mr.  Spencer  Hall,  not  from  the  Calendar 
of  State  Papers.     I  do  not  think  that  was  quite  understood. 

9860.  It  was  a  more  general  question  I  wished  to  ask  you 
on  that.     Do  you  think,  considering  her  position  and  the  neces- 
sity of  remaining  on  good  terms  with  Philip,  that  she  would  have 
told  De  Feria  the  truth  ? — But  I  think  that  the  whole  evidence 
with  regard  to  Elizabeth  goes  to  show  that  that  was  her  own 
view,   that   she   herself   really   adhered    so  far  as  she    could 
throughout  to  the  state  of  things  left  about  the  time   of   her 
father's  death,  and  by  that  I  understand  her  to  mean  the  result 
of  a  Commission  appointed  by  her  father  to  revise  the  Service 
Books,  which  Commission  was  sitting  at  the  time  of  her  father's 
death,  and  had  prepared,  I  believe,  a  draft  of  the   Order  of 
Communion  to  which  she  would,  of  course,  be  privy ;  it  was  a 
Committee  appointed  by  Convocation  under  Statutory  authority. 

9861.  I  was  not  asking  exactly  what  she  may  have  meant 
by  it — the  phrase  is  somewhat  vague — but  whether  you  think 
that  she  would  not  have  been  inclined  to  make  out  to  De  Feria 
that  she  was  more  disposed  towards  the  ancient  system  than 
she  actually  was  ? — I  do  not  think  so. 

9862.  How  do  you  account  then  for  the  fact  that  she  walked 
out  of  chapel  in  order  to  avoid  being  present  when  the  Host  was 
to  be  elevated  ? — Because  the  Elevation  of  the  Host  was  for- 
bidden in  the  Order  of  the  Communion  as  well  as  in  the  First 
Prayer  Book  of  Edward  VI. 

9863.  Then  she  cannot  have  intended  really  to  restore  reli- 
gion to  what  it  had  been  under  her  father? — Of  course  the  ex- 
pression is  vague,  but  what  I  understand  by  it   is   that   she 
intended  to  restore  it  as  it  was  left  practically  by  the  legislation 
of  her  father. 

9864.  It  is  so  vague  that  not  much  stress  can  be  laid  upon 
it,  can  it  ? — I  think  it  indicates  the  state  of  her  mind  combined 
with  her  own  practice.     The  ceremonial  for  the  funeral  of  her 
sister  and  for  that  of  Charles  V.  was  very  much  the  ceremonial 
that  would  have  taken  place  about  the  time  of  the  death  of  her 
father,  and  that  was  under  her  sanction. 

9865.  In  another  place  you  spoke,  I  think,  of  only  200  clergy 
having  refused  to  accept  the  Prayer  Book  ? — I  think  Hallam 
states  the  number  to  be  about  180. 

9866.  The  exact  number  is  not  important  for  my  point.    You 


DATE  OF  HEE  ACT  OF  UNIFOEMITY       341 

deduced  from  that,  I  think,  the  fact  that  there  were  very  few 
Puritan  clergy  in  the  early  part  of  the  reign  ? — No ;  the  point  I 
wanted  to  draw  from  that  was  that  there  were  then  about 
10,000  clergy,  and  that  if  they  all  conformed  with  the  exception 
of  about  200,  that  shows  that  the  externals  of  public  worship 
had  not  been  fundamentally  changed. 

9867.  It  also  shows,  does  it  not,  that  the  vast  bulk  of  the 
clergy  had  no  objection  to  the  change  that  had  been  made  in 
Edward  VI.'s  reign  ? — No ;  it  has  been  said  by  Coke,  has  it  not, 
in  his  charge    at    Norwich,  that  for    the   first    eight   years,  I 
forget  exactly  whether  it  is  eight  or  thirteen  years,  those  whom 
we  afterwards   call  Eoman  Catholics  attended  the   churches, 
and  they  did  so,  in  fact,  practically  until  the  Queen  was  ex- 
communicated by  the  Pope.     It  has  been  said   (it   has  been 
questioned  by  some  Eoman  Catholics)  on  good  authority  that 
the  Pope  himself  intimated  that  he  would  accept  the  Prayer 
Book  provided  that  the  Queen  accepted  his  supremacy. 

9868.  But  it  must  prove,  must  it  not,  that   at    any  rate 
the  great  bulk  of  the  clergy  had  no  objection  to  the  differences 
introduced  in  the  Second  Prayer  Book  of  Edward  VI.  ? * — But 
the  Second  Prayer  Book  was  not  the  Prayer  Book  of  Elizabeth. 
There  were  very  important  differences. 

9869.  To  go  on  to  the  point  that  you  made  about  King 
Edward  VI.'s  first  Act  of  Uniformity,  I  think  you  said  that  you 
did  not  think  it  could  possibly  have  received  the  Eoyal  Sanction 
before  the  end  of  the  second  year,  because  there  was  not  time 
between  its  passing  through  Parliament  and  the  end  of  that 
year? — Not  merely  because  there  was  not  time,  but  because 
it  seems  to  me  impossible  that  the  ceremonial  of  passing  it 
by  Commission  under  the  Great  Seal,  and  by  the  King's  sign 
manual  in  Letters  Patent  in  the  presence  of   the  Lords   and 
Commons,  should  have    happened    without    any    note   of   it 
being  in  history  at  all.     I  do  not  think  there  is  another  single 
case  where  the  King  passed  before  the  end  of  the  session  by 
that  process  an  Act  of  Parliament  without  any  record  of  it  being 
left,  and  the  time  was  only  four  days. 

9870.  Four  days  ?    I  think  that  is  a  little  under  the  mark, 
is  it  not  ? — No,  four  days. 

9871.  It  passed  on  January  22  ? — Yes. 

9872.  And  the  27th  was  the  last  day  of  the  second  year  ? 
— But  the  27th   was   Sunday,  and  nothing  could  happen  on 
Sunday.     Parliament  did  not   sit   on   Sunday,   and  therefore 
there  were  only  four  days. 

9873.  You  are  aware,  I  dare  say,  that  the  Act  of  Attainder 
of  the  Duke  of  Norfolk  at  the  end  of  Henry  VIII. 's  reign  was 

1  The  second  Prayer  Book  had  hardly  come  into  use  before  Edward  VI.'s 
death.    See  pp.  168-170. 


342       DATE  OF  HEE  ACT  OF  UNIFOEMITY 

passed  and  received  the  Eoyal  Assent  in  even  a  shorter  space 
of  time  ? — Yes,  but  then  you  have  the  record  of  that ;  it  was 
done  with  all  the  formalities  of  Letters  Patent,  etc.,  and  there 
was  a  special  King's  Council  for  it.  But  here  you  have  not  a 
scrap  of  evidence  to  show  that  anything  of  the  kind  took  place. 

9874.  I  understand  your  argument  to  be  not  so  much  that 
there  was  not  time,  but  that  in  such  an  exceptional  case  there 
would  have  been  a  record  if  it  had  happened  ? — Yes,  you  might 
squeeze  it  into  the  time,  though  of  course  four  days  is  a  very 
short  time  to  do  it  in.      But  that  is  not   my  only  evidence, 
because  I  think  there  is  no  question  that  the  Eoyal  Sanction 
was  given  to  a  list  of  sixty  Acts  on  the  14th  of  March  of  the 
third  year.     If  it  is  disputed  that  the  Act  of  Uniformity  which 
heads  the  list  was  one  of  the  Acts  to  receive  the  Eoyal  Assent 
on  that  day,  surely  the  onus  of  proof  is  on  those  who  dispute  it. 
Is  it  disputed  that  the  Eoyal  Assent  was  given  on  the  14th  of 
March  to  all  the  Acts  there  mentioned  ? 

9875.  Of  that  I  am  not  sure.     You  say  then  that  it  is  im- 
possible to  establish  by  actual  historical  proof  the  date  at  which 
Assent  was  given  ? — No,  I  think  there  is  no  doubt  that  it  was 
given  on  the  14th  of  March,  because  the  Act  of  Uniformity  is 
in  the  list  of  Acts  which  are  declared  then  to  have  passed  at 
the  end  of  the  session. 

9876.  Declared  to  have  passed ;  but  it  does  not  actually  set 
down  that  the  Assent  was  given  ? — Then  I  can  prove  that  in- 
dependently.    The  General  Pardon  Act  was  introduced  into  the 
House  of  Lords  on  the  8th  of  March ;    it  passed   its   Second 
Eeading  I  think  on  the  9th;    it  passed  its  Third   Eeading   I 
think  on  the  13th  ;  it  went  down  to  the  House  of  Commons  on 
the  14th  and  passed  its  three  Eeadings  that  very  day  in  order 
to  be  in  time  to  receive  the  Eoyal  Assent,  and  it  is  among  the 
Acts  passed  at  the  end  of  the  session.     That  fixes  the  date  as 
the  14th.     In  addition  to  that,  the  General  Pardon  Act,  which 
I  believe  really  gave  the  pardon  to  those  mentioned  in  the  Act 
of  Uniformity,  gives  the  date  for  the  passing  as  that  of  the 
14th  March. 

9877.  The  passing  of  that  Act — the  General  Pardon  Act? 
— But  it  is  among  the  list  of  Acts  passed  then. 

9878.  Only  of  the  Acts  passed  during  the  Session  ? — It  gives 
the  date  of  it  as  the  14th  March  ;  the  Pardon  Act  itself  states 
that. 

9879.  Of  the  Act  of  Pardon  ?— Yes. 

9880.  The  date  at  which  it  was  passed  ? — But  then,  surely, 
if  you  dispute  that  the  other  Acts  were  passed  at  the  same 
date  you  must  give  some  evidence  about  it.     You  have  a  list 
at  the  end  of  the  Parliament  of  sixty  Acts  to  which  the  Eoyal 
Assent,  it  is   said,  was  given,  which  passed   Parliament,  and 


EDWAED  VI.'S  JOUKNAL  343 

that  is  among  them,  and  there  is  no  doubt  that  the  Act  received 
the  Eoyal  Assent  on  the  14th  March.  It  is  surely  for  those  who 
dispute  it  to  prove  their  case  that  all  the  Acts  did  not  receive 
the  Eoyal  Assent  on  the  same  day. 

9881.  Then  your  point,  as  I  understand,  is  that  because 
the   Act  of  Uniformity  is  included  in  that  list  given   in  the 
General  Pardon  Act,  therefore  it  must  have  been   passed  on 
the  same  day? — Yes,  but  not   only   on  that   ground,  because 
it  seems  to  me  impossible  that  if  it  had  been  passed  by  Eoyal 
Commission  with  all  the  formalities  involved,  there  should  not 
be  a  single  record  of  the  fact  left  to  us. 

9882.  I  should  have  thought  that  there  were  many  Acts 
which  have  taken  place  which  were  not  recorded.    You  know 
that  Edward  records  it  as  having  passed  in  his  second  year 
in  his  own  journal  ? — No,  pardon  me,  that  has  been  said ;  but 
he  does  not  record  it  as  having  been  passed  in  that  year  at  all ; 
it  was  "  made."     He  says  it  was  made  by  a  Committee  of  bishops 
sitting  at  Windsor.1   And  that  note,  it  is  quite  true,  in  Edward's 
journal  is  under  date  of  the  second  year,  but  it  was  evidently 
written  in  the  third  year,  because  it  records  the  Assent  to  the 
execution  of  Lord  Sudeley,  which  did  not  take  place  until  the 
third  month  of  the  third  year. 

9883.  Do  you  mean  that  because  it  was  written  during  the 
third  year,  therefore  the  statement  that  the  Act  was  passed  in 
the  second  year  cannot   be  regarded  as  sound? — No,  it  does 
not  say  it  was  passed.     It  says  the  Act 2  was  made  by  a  Com- 
mittee of  Divines  sitting  at  Windsor. 

9884.  May  I  read  you  the  paragraph  ?     The  entry  is  for  the 
second  year,  and  the  last  paragraph  of  it  is  this  :  '  A  Parliament 
was  called,  where  the  Uniform  Order  of  Prayer  was  institute, 
before  made  by  a  number  of  bishops  and  learned  men  gathered 
together  in  Windsor.' — That  is  perfectly  accurate. 

9885.  The  word  'made'  does  not  apply  to  the  passing  of  the 
Act  of  Parliament,  but  to  its  consideration   beforehand   by   a 
body  of  bishops  and  learned  men? — It  refers  to  the  Prayer 
Book  being  framed,  compiled  by  the  Committee  of  Divines,  at 
Windsor. 

9886.  But  you  see  it  is  stated  plainly  that  it  was  in  this 
Parliament  of  the  '  year  2 '  that  '  the  Uniform  Order  of  Prayers 
was  institute '  ? — Certainly ;  it  passed  Parliament  in  the  second 
year ;  it  did  not  become  a  legal  instrument  until  the  third  year. 

9887.  Supposing,  for  the  sake  of  argument,  that  it  did  not 
receive  the  Eoyal  Assent  until  the  beginning  of  the  third  year, 
do  you  hold  that  it  could  not  have  been  spoken  of  as  an  Act  of 

1  This  was  a  slip  on  my  part.    What  Edward  VI.  says  was  '  made  '  was 
the  Prayer  Book,  not  the  Act  of  Uniformity. 

2  The  Prayer  Book,  not  the  Act. 


344       DATE  OF  HER  ACT  OP  UNIFORMITY 

Parliament  of  the  second  year  or  as  having  been  made  by 
authority  of  Parliament  in  the  second  year? — It  could  not  be 
said  to  have  the  authority  of  Parliament  in  the  second  year ;  it 
had  no  authority  at  all  till  it  received  the  Royal  sanction. 

9888.  No,  of   course  not,  but    you  mean  that  an  Act   got 
through  by  Parliament  in  the  second  year  and  only  sanctioned 
by  the  King  in  the  beginning  of  the  third  year  could  not  have 
been  spoken  of  as  an  Act  of  Parliament  of  the  second  year  ? — 
I  do  not  go  so  far  as  that,  but  I  say  that  anything  ordered  by 
a  book  which  did  not  come  into  legal  use  until  the  third  year 
could  not  be  said  to  have  the  authority  of  Parliament — to  be 
used  by  the  authority  of  Parliament  in  the  second  year. 

9889.  Sir  Lewis  Dibdin  quoted  a  statute,  that  statute  of  the 
fifth  and  sixth  year  of  Edward,  in  which  the  Act  of  Uniformity 
itself  is  spoken  of  as  an  Act  made  in  the  second  year  of  Ed- 
ward VI.  ? — I  admit  all  that.     I  say  that  the   phraseology  is 
that  Acts  are  made  in  the  Parliament  or  in  the  session  so  and 
so.     They  are  all  made  in  Parliament.     The   King  has  abso- 
lutely nothing  to  do  with  the  making  of  an  Act ;  he  can  veto 
it  after  it  is  made  by  Parliament ;  it  is  his  function  to  accept 
it  or  reject  it,  but  it  is  made  before  and  must  be  made  before 
he  gives  his  sanction  or  rejection  of  it. 

9890.  But  Acts  of  Parliament  which  are  made  or  passed 
by  Parliament  in  a  certain  year  and  not  sanctioned  by  the  King 
until  the  next  year,  or  perhaps  two  years  afterwards,  are  spoken 
of  in  other  Acts  of  Parliament  as  having  been  made  in  the  first 
or  the  last  of  those  years ;  the  practice  varies.     Let  me  recall 
another   instance.      In  the  very  first  year  of  Edward  VI.,  in 
chapter    12,    section    4,    there    is    a    reference   to   an    Act   of 
Henry  VIII.'s   reign,  the   Act   about  Proclamations,  '  as   one 
other  Act  made  in  Parliament  holden  in  the  thirty-fourth  year 
of  the  reign  of  the  said  King  Henry  VIII.'     Now   that  Par- 
liament was  held  in  two  years  just  in  the  same  way  as   the 
Parliament  of  the  second  and  third  years  of  Edward  VI.  ? — Yes. 

9891.  And  yet  it  is  referred  to  as  an  Act  made  in  Parlia- 
ment holden  in  the  first  of  those  two  years,  that  is  in  the  thirty- 
fourth  year  ? — Yes. 

9892.  Whereas    it  was  only  passed  by  Parliament    in   the 
thirty-fourth  year  and  did  not  receive  the  Royal  sanction  until 
the  thirty-fifth  year? — But  I  do  not  know  that  that  conflicts 
with  my  point  of  view. 

9893.  Is  it  not  plain  from  that  that  an  Act  of  Parliament 
passed  in  the  second  year,  which  had  got  through  Parliament 
in  the  second  year  of  Edward  VI.  and  was  sanctioned  only  in 
the  third  year,  might  be  spoken  of  as  an  Act  of  Parliament  or 
as  having  been  done  by  authority  of  Parliament  in  the  second 
year  ? — Would  you  mind  quoting  the  expression  again. 


MR.  DEUEY  ON  CEEEMONIES  345 

9894.  The  expression  in  the  Act  I  quoted  is  'One  other 
Act  made  in  Parliament  holden  in  the  thirty-fourth  year  of  the 
reign  of  the  said  King  Henry  VIII.'     An  Act  of  Parliament 
then  can  be  said  to  belong  to  the  first  of  two  years  over  which 
it  runs  ? — But  I  do  not  see  that  that  conflicts  at  all  with  my 
view.     That  means  to  say  an  Act  made  in  the  Parliament  which 
began  in  that  year. 

9895.  Yes,  no  doubt  it  does.     But  it  shows   that  an  Act 
like  Edward's  first  Act  of  Uniformity  can  be  called  an  Act  of 
the  first  of  two  years  ? J — Yes,  but  it  cannot  be  said  to  have 
the  authority  in  that  year ;  that  is  my  point. 

(Rev.  T.  W.  Drury.)  I  understand  your  position  to  be  that 
the  Ornaments  Eubric  restored  in  its  integrity  the  rule  of  public 
worship  in  legal  use  in  the  second  year  of  Edward  VI.  ? — Yes, 
as  regards  ornaments. 

9896.  And  that  the  old  ceremonial,  with  certain  modifications 
which  were  made  in  Henry  VIII. 's  reign  and  in  the  early  part 
of  Edward  VI. 's  reign,  was  restored  ? — Yes. 

9897.  That  is  your  position,  is  it  not  ? — Yes. 

9898.  Can   you   tell   the  Commission  what   ceremonies   in 
public  worship  were  modified  at  that  time,  I  mean  in  the  later 
part  of   Henry's  reign  and  the  first  part  of  Edward's  reign? 
— It  does  not  say  anything  about  ceremonies,  it  says  ornaments. 

9899.  But  I  am  quoting  from  your  book,  if  I  may  accept 
the  words  of  it  ? — '  A  great  deal  was  modified ;  a  great  many 
superstitions   were    abolished  :    for  instance,   burning    tapers 
before  images  and  a  number  of  other  things.' 

9900.  That  does  not  refer  to  public  worship,  does  it  ? — Yes, 
it  does. 

9901.  The  burning  of  tapers  before  images  refers  to  public 
worship? — Yes,   a  service   conducted  in    church    of   a   public 
character  in  processions  and  the  like. 

9902.  Did  not  that  refer  to  the  private  burning  of  tapers 
before  images  ?— No,  it  referred  to  both. 

9903.  In  what  way  was  the  burning  of  tapers  in  public  used ; 
in  what  services? — In   processions  at  various  services.     I  do 
not  say  in  the  Mass,  though  they  may  have  been  even  there, 
but  there  were  a  number  of  other  services,  besides  the  Mass. 

9904.  Can  you  give  me  the  ceremonies  that  were  pruned  or 
modified  in  the   Mass? — If  Dr.  Gibson  will  allow  me  to  say 
so,  I  think  I  was  correct  in  saying  that  the  Epistle  and  Gospel 
were  authorised  in  English. 

9905.  You  would  hardly  call  that  a  ceremony,  would  you  ? 

1  No,  unless  '  holden '  is  used ;  and  then  the  date  refers  to  the  beginning 
of  the  session,  not  to  the  passing  of  the  Act,  which  indeed  may  have  been 
introduced  some  years  later. 


346  ME.  DEUEY  ON  CEEEMONIES 

— The  Order  of  the  Communion  prescribes  all  the  ceremonies  in 
the  Mass  except  in  so  far  as  they  were  modified  by  itself. 

9906.  The  Order  of  Communion  does  not  say  so? — But  I 
did  not  finish.     I  said  the  Order  of  the  Communion  says  that 
except  with  regard  to  the  points  laid  down  by  itself  the  cere- 
monies of  the  Mass  were  to  be  kept  as  they  were. 

9907.  Exactly,  that  is    my  point;    the  ceremonies  of  the 
Mass  were  left  as  they  were  ? — Will  you  refer  me  to  the  part 
of  my  book  which  you  are  quoting. 

9908.  The  words  are  that  the  old  ceremonial  as  pruned  and 
modified  in  Henry  VIII. 's  reign  and  in  the  beginning  of  Ed- 
ward VI. 's  reign  was  restored  in  the  reign  of  Elizabeth? — Yes. 

9909.  That  is  my  point.     You  accept  that  ? — Yes,  I  accept 
that,  but  I  apply  that   to   the  whole  of  the  services   held  in 
churches  and  cathedrals. 

9910.  Of  course.     But   you   have   only  given  us  now  one 
modification,  namely,  the  burning  of  tapers  before  images,  which 
you  say  is  a  part  of  public  worship.     Can  you  give  some  others  ? 
— You  cannot  give  me  the  page  of  my  book,  can  you  ? 

9911.  No,  but  I  do   not  think  that   is   really  material  ? — 
I  think  it  is ;  the  context  very  often  alters  it. 

9912.  But  you  accept  the  position,  do   you   not,   that  the 
old  ceremonial  was   restored  with  certain  modifications ;  you 
have  told  us  so  again  and  again  ? — But  what  do  you  mean  by 
the  old  ceremonial? 

9913.  The    ceremonial    of   the    mediaeval    service    books, 
I  presume  ? — I  do  not  say  that. 

9914.  You  say  the  old  ceremonial  as  pruned  and  modified. 
What  other  ceremonial  do  you  mean  ? — I  mean  the  ceremonial 
of  public  worship. 

9915.  But  where  do   you  find   it   except   in  the  mediaeval 
service  books,  the  service  books  of  Sarum,  and  York,  and  so 
on — the  old  English  Uses  ? — I  grant  you  that  it  is  to  be  partly 
found  in  those  service  books. 

9916.  Then  the   old   ceremonial   as  found   in    the  Sarum 
books,   but   as   pruned  and  modified    in   Henry   VIII. 's    and 
Edward  VI. 's  reign,  was  restored.    Page  649  is  the  page  in  your 
book  ? — Thank  you.     I  say  it  refers  '  Undoubtedly  to  the  old 
ceremonial   as  pruned  and   modified  first  toward  the  end  of 
Henry  VIII. 's  reign,  and  still  further  in  the  beginning  of  the 
reign  of  Edward  VI.  by  means  of  his  Injunctions  and  "  The 
Order  of  the  Communion."  ' 

9917.  We  know,  of  course,  very  well  that  in  the  reign  of 
Edward  VI.  it   was  by  Injunctions  and    the   Order  of    Com- 
munion ? — Then  it  is  difficult  to  give  chapter  and  verse  without 
having  the  book  before  me,  but  I  will  give  it  you  on  the  spot. 
For  instance,  there  were  changes  made  in  the  processions. 


MB.  DRURY  ON  CEREMONIES  347 

9918.  The  processions  were  abolished,  were  they  not  ? — No  ; 
on  the  contrary,  under  Henry  VIII.,  the  processional  services 
were  put  into  English. 

9919.  They  were  altered? — Yes,  they  were  altered;   they 
were  not  abolished. 

9920.  Were  they  not  abolished  in  Edward's  reign  ? — I  will 
not  say  for  certain  at  the  moment,  but  they  were  not  abolished 
in  the  reign  of  Henry  VIII. ;  they  were  altered  in  the  reign  of 
Henry  VIII. 

9921.  Then  something  else? — A  good  deal  of  the  ceremonial 
was  altered. 

9922.  But  you  have  given  me  now  only  two  instances,  tapers 
and  processions  ? — If  I  were  in  my  library,  I  could  give  you  a 
good  deal  more,  but  that  will  suffice  for  the  present.    I  give 
you  instances. 

9923.  You  have  given  me  two.     Do  you  suppose  you  could 
give  me  twelve  ? — I  do  not  know  that  there  is  anything  sacred 
in  the  number  twelve. 

9924.  No,  there  is  no  sacred  number  at  all.     I  want  to  know 
how  many  more  were  abolished  ? — I  cannot  tell  you  on  the  spur 
of  the  moment,  but  I  could  give  you  several  more.     I  hold  that 
saying  in  English  what  used  to  be  said  in  Latin  is  a  ceremonial. 

9925.  Now  the  same  Act  of  Parliament  as  gave  force  to  the 
Ornaments  Rubric  of  Elizabeth  brought  into  full  force  the  Second 
Prayer  Book  of  Edward  VI.,  did  it  not,  with  certain  exceptions 
which  we  need  not  go  into,  and  of  course  with  the  exception  of 
the  matter  of  ornaments  ? — Yes. 

9926.  So  that  that  Prayer  Book  had  full  force  with  those 
exceptions  by  that  Act  of  Parliament.     Now  the  Prayer  Book 
as  restored  in  Elizabeth's  reign  contained  the  Chapter  of  Cere- 
monies, did  it  not  ? — Yes,  taken  from  the  First  Prayer  Book. 

9927.  It  contained  that  chapter,  did  it  not  ? — Yes. 

9928.  So  that  that  chapter,  I  suppose,  has  the  same  force  as 
the  rest  of  the  Prayer  Book,  has  it  not  ? — Yes. 

9929.  I  want  to  read  a  few  words  to  you  from  that  chapter. 
It  speaks,  as  I  daresay  you  know  as  well  as  I  do,  of  the  multitude 
of  ceremonies  which  had  existed.     '  The  great  excess  and  multi- 
tude of  them  hath  so  increased  in  these  latter  days  that  the 
burden  of  them  was  intolerable.' — Yes. 

9930.  Then  it  goes  on  to  say  that  in  Augustine's  time  the 
ceremonies  were  so  great  that '  the  estate  of  Christian  people 
was  in  worse  case  concerning  that  matter  than  were  the  Jews.' 
Then  it  draws  a  contrast  between  the  days  of  Augustine  and 
the  days  when  these  words  were  written,  and  says :  '  But  what 
would  St.  Augustine  have  said  if  he  had  seen  the  ceremonies  of 
late  days  used  among  us  ?  '     Then  it  goes  on  to  speak  of  this 
'  excessive  multitude  of  ceremonies '  which  was  '  so  great.'    The 


348  ME.  DEUEY  ON  CEEEMONIES 

question  I  want  to  ask  you  is  :  How  could  those  words  have 
been  given  that  force  in  the  time  of  Elizabeth  when  practically, 
with  the  few  exceptions  you  have  given  us,  the  older  ritual  still 
remained  ? — But  that  has  to  do  with  ceremonies,  and  so  forth. 

9931.  Let  us  keep  to  the  point  if  we  can.     I  am  speaking  of 
the  multitude  of  them.      There  must  have  been  a   multitude 
which  was  done  away  with  ? — Yes,  undoubtedly  creeping  to  the 
cross  and  various  things  on  Good  Friday  ;  throwing  ashes  on  the 
heads  on  Ash  Wednesday,  burning  candles  on  Candlemas,  and 
there  were  whole  tribes  and  hosts  of  them. 

9932.  You  have  named,  so  far  as  I  know,  almost  all  that 
were   abolished   of   that  kind.      Now   what  ceremonies   were 
abolished  connected  with  the  services  which  are  now  in  the  Book 
of  Common  Prayer  ? — Creeping  to  the  cross  was  one. 

9933.  That  is  not  connected  with  any  service  at  present  in 
the  Book  of  Common  Prayer  ? — Is  it  not  for  Good  Friday  ? 

9934.  The  whole  of  that  Good  Friday  service  is  abolished, 
as  you  know ;  none  of  that  part  of  the  Good  Friday  service  was 
even  found  in  our  Prayer  Book  ? — No  ? 

9935.  Then  can  you  give  us  another  ? — The  putting  of  ashes 
on  the  head  on  Ash  Wednesday. 

9936.  Another  ? — Burning  candles   at   Easter  and  Candle- 
mas, Cranmer  refers  to  them  and  also  the  Venetian  Ambassador 
in  one  of  his  Letters.     I  cannot  recall  them  all  on  the  spur  of 
the  moment. 

9937.  Now   take   the    Service  of    the  Mass.     What  was 
omitted  ? — I  have  said  already  that  the  Order  of  the  Communion 
says  that  nothing  was  to  be  omitted  except  with  regard  to  the 
points  laid  down  by  itself  at  that  time. 

9938.  You  think  that  the  ceremonies  that  you  have  mentioned 
are  sufficient  to  justify  the  strong  words  of  the  Chapter  of  Cere- 
monies ? — There  were  a  number  of  other  ceremonies. 

9939.  But  you  think  the  ceremonies  that  you  have  mentioned, 
and  I  think  you  have  mentioned  nearly  all  that  were  altered, 
are  sufficient? — But  I  do   not   admit  that.     I  could   mention 
numbers  more. 

9940.  Then  you  do  not  think  the  number  that  you  have 
mentioned  is  sufficient  to  justify  the  words  of  the  Chapter  of 
Ceremonies,  but  you  think  you  could  bring  more  ? — I  am  sure 
I  could. 

9941.  That  is  what  we  have  come  to  then  :  that  the  number 
you  have  mentioned  is  not  sufficient  to  justify  the  language  of 
this  chapter,  but  you  think  you  could  bring  more  ? — I  know 
I  could  bring  more. 

9942.  (Rev.  Dr.  Gibson.)  I  want  to  ask  you  one  or  two 
questions  about  a  point  on  which  you  have  not  been  questioned 
yet.     You  referred  in  your  evidence  on  the  first  day  you  were 


LATIN  ACT  OF  UNIFOEMITY  349 

here  to  the  Latin  use  ;  your  words,  which  are  on  page  1095  of 
the  evidence,  are  that  Elizabeth's  '  Latin  version  of  the  Act  of 
Uniformity  uses  the  words  quemadmodum  mos  erat — it  was  the 
custom  of  the  second  year — it  was  the  usage  of  the  second  year ; 
that  is  the  Latin  translation.'  I  see  you  make  a  great  point  of 
that  in  your  book.  You  referred  to  it  in  several  places  as  if 
you  laid  considerable  stress  on  it  ? — Yes. 

9943.  You  are  aware  of  the  character  of  the  Latin  Prayer 
Book  of  Elizabeth;  you  are  aware  of  the  extraordinary  mis- 
translations there  are  in  it  ? — Yes,  I  know  all  that, 

9944.  And  yet  you  lay  considerable  stress  on  this  ? — But 
I  do  not  think  that  that  is  any  mistranslation ;  I  think  it  is  a 
very  good  translation  of  the  phrase  in  the  Act  of  Parliament 
'  as  was.'     It  is  ungrammatical  as  it  stands.     Have  you  the 
clause  of  the  Act  of  Parliament  before  you  where  '  as  was '  is 
used? 

9945.  But  I  do  not  think  you  have  quite   understood  my 
question.     My  question  is  this  :  That  being  aware  of  the  extra- 
ordinary mistranslations  and  inaccuracies  that  there  are  in  the 
book,  you,  nevertheless,  do  lay  stress  on  this  point  ? l — Yes,  I  do. 

9946.  In  spite  of  the  inaccuracy  ? — Yes.    But  let  me  say,  as 
to  the  inaccuracies,  that  Aless's  translation  was  a  great  deal 
more  inaccurate  than    is  the    last  revision  of   it  by   Haddon. 
Haddon  was  a  very  good  Latin  scholar,  and  Haddon  corrected 
a  good  many  of  the  mistranslations. 

9947.  Haddon  was  a  very  good  Latin  scholar;  you  think 
his  translation   of  the  rubric  in  the   Communion  of  the  Sick 
implies  that  he  was  such  a  good  scholar,  do  you  ?     Where  he 
says  that  if  a  sick  man  cannot  come  into  the  church  and  wishes 
the  Sacrament  to  be  given  to  him  in  his  house  significant  turn 
demum  postridie  aut  primo  mane  parocho ;  he  is  to  give  notice 
apparently  the  day  after?— That  is  evidently  a  misprint. 

9948.  You  think  a  good  Latin  scholar  would  put  postridie 
instead  of  pridie  ? — That  is  evidently  a  slip. 

9949.  I  think  you  will  find  that  there  are  a  good  many  slips, 
but  I  think  we  will  leave  that  ? — But  may  I  finish  it  ?     I  say 
that  the   clause  in   Elizabeth's  Act  is  not  grammatical  as  it 
stands  ;  but  it  is  grammatical  according  to  my  view :  '  Provided 
always,  and  be  it  enacted  that  such  ornaments  of  the  Church 
and  the  ministers  thereof  shall  be  retained  as  was  ' — that  means 
'as   was   the   custom  in  this   Church  of  England."      It  must 
mean  that  grammatically  ;  quemadmodum  mos  erat. 

9950.  Now,  I  want  to  go  on  and  ask  you  where  you  get 
that  Latin  version  of  the  Act  of  Uniformity  from? — I  got  it 
from  the  edition  of  the  Latin  Prayer  Book  of  Queen  Elizabeth. 

'  What  have  inaccuracies  in  the  Book  to  do  with  the  Latin  translation 
of  the  Act  of  Uniformity  ?    Nothing  at  all. 


350  LATIN  ACT  OF  UNIFOBMITY 

9951.  Do  you  remember  what  edition  it  was  ? — I  cannot  on 
the  spur  of  the  moment. 

9952.  Because  you  will  find  in  the  reprint  of  the  Latin 
Prayer  Book  in  the  Parker  Society's  publication,  which  I  have 
tested  by  the  original  copy  in  the  British  Museum,1  that  the  Act 
of  Uniformity  does  not  exist  nor  does  the  Ornaments  Eubric. 
Here  is  Clay's  edition,  in  which  the  letters  patent  take  the  place 
of  the  Act  of  Uniformity,  and  the  Ornaments  Kubric  is  omitted 
altogether.     I  have  verified  Clay's  edition  by  a  reference  to  the 
original  edition  in  the  British  Museum,  and  there  is  no  Act  of 
Uniformity  at  all,  nor  is  there  any  Ornaments  Eubric.    This, 
which  you  lay  so  much  stress  upon,  comes  not  from  what  you 
call  the  only  legal  Latin  Prayer  Book  and  authorised  Latin 
version,  but  from  an  unauthorised  Latin  version  of  twelve  years 
later,  1572.     You  were  not  aware  of  those  facts,  I  presume, 
Therefore  the  words  quemadmodum  mos  erat,  on  which  you  lay 
so  much  stress,  do  not  exist  in  the  book  you  profess  to  quote 
from.     You  refer  again  in  your  book  to '  the  contemporary  Latin 
version'  of   the   Act   in    Elizabeth's   Latin   Prayer   Book,   at 
page  649 ;  as  '  the  contemporary  interpretation  '  you  speak  of  it 
on  page  381 ;  you  use  the  words  '  the  authorised  Latin  version ' 
at  page  594  ;  the  '  contemporary  Latin  version '  at  page  628 ; 
'  the  fatal  qwmadmodum '  on  page  702  ;  '  the  only  legal '  book  of 
1560  on  page  704.     You  see  you  lay  great  stress  upon  it,  but 
it  does  not  exist  ? — But  I  lay  great  stress  upon  it  as  the  con- 
temporary reading  of  the  Ornaments  Eubric. 

9953.  Pardon  me,  not  only  as  the  contemporary,  but  as  the 
authorised  and  legal  one  ? — Yes. 

9954.  It  was  neither  authorised,  nor  was  it  legal :  and  it  was 
not  strictly  contemporary  ? 2 — Then  you  say  the  authorised  edi- 
tion of  the  Act  of  Uniformity  does  not  exist  ? 

9955.  No ;  there  is  no  Act  at  all  nor  the  Ornaments  Eubric 
in  the  Latin  Prayer  Book  of  1560.     I  do  not  understand  how 
you  can  lay  stress  upon  it,  not  only  as  contemporary  but  as 
authorised  and  the  only  legal  one,  when  the  only  legal  Book 
does  not  contain  the  words  ? — Then  I  drop  it.3     But  with  regard 
to  the  Ornaments  Eubric,  it  is,  I  believe,  a  fact  that  there  are 
only  two  copies  existing  of  the  first  impression  of  Elizabeth's 
Prayer  Book,  and  both  contain  the  Ornaments  Eubric.     One  is 
in  the  possession  of  Lord  Aldenham  and  the  other  I  saw  five 
years  ago  at  Quaritch's. 

1  The  original  copy  is  not  in  the  British  Museum.     It  is  dated  1559,  and 
there  is  a  copy  in  Trinity  College,  Dublin. 

2  Dr.  Gibson  is  quite  wrong  here,  although  I  could  not  correct  him  from 
memory  on  the  spur  of  the  moment.     See  Chapter  IX. 

8  I  was  quite  right.    I  have  given  the  evidence  on  pp.  94-108.     Its 
legality  is  not  affected  by  its  being  in,  or  out  of,  '  the  only  legal  Book.' 


COSIN  ON  OBNAMENTS  EUBKIC  351 

9956.  It  does  appear  in  the  unauthorised  edition  of  1572, 
Wolfe's  edition  ;  you  will  find  it  in  a  different  translation  alto- 
gether unauthorised,  not  legal  and  not  contemporary.     Those 
are  the  points  ? — 1572  might  be  called  contemporary. 

9957.  Not  strictly;    at  any  rate  not  authorised  nor  legal. 
Then  if  you  have  your  evidence  before  you  and  will  refer  to 
page   1118   at  question  and  answer  9014.     I   want   to   know 
whether  this   is   accurately  represented.     The   question  was  : 
1  Can  you  point  out    to   me  any  suggestion   by  anybody  for 
200  years  after  the  rubric  was  drawn  up  that  the  authority 
of  Parliament  referred  to  any  Statute  other  than  that  which  we 
know  as  the  2nd  of  Edward  VI.  ? '  and  your  answer  was  '  Cosin, 
and  Sandys,  who  was  his  contemporary,  and  Strype  :  I  think 
Fuller,  Hayward  in  his  Life  of  Edward   VI.  and  Heylin  all 
claim  the  authority  of  Parliament  for  the  Order  of  Communion 
and  therefore  exclude  the  other  '  ? — Sandys  was  hardly  the  con- 
temporary of  Cosin. 

9958.  I  do  not  think  you  can  mean  that  ?—  I  do  not  think 
I  said  it. 

9959.  But  do  you  assert  now  that  all  these  people  whom 
you  here   mention  claim  the  authority  of  Parliament  for  the 
Order  of  Communion  ? — I  do. 

9960.  And  that  thereby  they  exclude  the  other  by  which 
I  presume  you  mean  the  Statute  of  the  2nd  of  Edward  VI., 
the  Act  of  Uniformity  ? — Yes. 

9961.  Where  do  you  find  that  Cosin  claims  the  authority  of 
Parliament  for  the  Order  of  Communion  ? — I  have  given  it  in 
my  book.     Cosin  claims  more  than  one  authority  for  that ;  he 
claims  the  authority  of  the  revived  Statute,  25  Henry  VIII. 

9962.  But  I  am  asking  about  his  claiming  it  as  authority  for 
the  Order  of  Communion — not  about  other  things.     This  is  an 
assertion  that  he  claims  the  authority  of  Parliament  for  the 
Order  of  Communion.     If  I  may  venture  to  say  so,  I  rather  think 
it  was  a  slip  of  yours  saying  that,  and  that  what  you  meant 
really  was  that  Cosin  claims  the  authority  of  Parliament  for  the 
Injunctions  ;  you  refer  to  that  on  an  earlier  page,  page  1113  ? — 
Yes,  I  have  given  what  I  meant  in  my  book  in  two  quotations 
from  Cosin,  but  it  is  difficult  to  find  on  the  spur  of  the  moment 
the  passages  in  my  own  book  even.     I  had  in  my  mind  the 
Injunctions,  he  mentions  the  Injunctions. 

9963.  Quite  so  ? — And  he  mentions  the  Act  of  Henry  VIII. 
as  reviving  the  old  Synodals  Provincial. 

9964.  But  I  am  not  aware  that  Cosin  has  any  allusion  to  the 
Order  of  Communion  ? — No,  I  referred  there  to  Sandys,  Fuller, 
Hayward,  and  Heylin. 

9965.  Is  Cosin  there  by  accident?    Cosin  ought  not  to  be 
in  ? — No,  he  ought  not  to  be  in  there. 


352  COSIN  ON  OENAMENTS  EUBKIC 

9966.  But  if  you  substitute  the  Injunctions  for  the  Order 
of  Communion  then  you  would  still  refer  to  Cosin,  would  you, 
as  an  authority  for  the  Ornaments  Kubric  of  Elizabeth  referring 
to  the  usage  before  the  First  Prayer  Book  was  published  ? — 
I  have  not  the  Injunctions  before  me,  but  certainly  Cosin  claims 
that  the  Ornaments  Eubric  sanctions  what  existed  as  in  use  in 
the  second  year  of  King  Edward  VI. 

9967.  Yes,  and  he  refers  to  the  Injunctions  certainly.     But 
are   you   aware   that   he  is  historically   inaccurate   about  the 
Injunctions,  because  he  says  they  were  mentioned  in  the  Act  of 
Uniformity,  that  they  received  Parliamentary  authority  from  the 
Act  of  Uniformity  of  Edward  VI.  which  is  a  historical  blunder  ? — 
Undoubtedly. 

9968.  Cosin  is  a  great  authority  :  that  you  told  us  yourself 
quite  definitely  when  you  referred  to  him  on  page  1113  of  your 
evidence :  '  Now  Cosin  is  a  great  authority.     He  had  himself  to 
do  with  the  last  revision  of  the  Prayer  Book.'     And  you  then 
quoted  some  words  from  Cosin.     I  take  it  it  is  admitted  that  it 
was  a  slip  in  your  evidence  referring  to  Cosin  as  an  authority 
for  the  statement  that  the  Order  of  Communion  had  Parlia- 
mentary authority  ? — Yes. 

9969.  But  what  you  do  refer  to  Cosin  for  is  the  Injunctions  ? 
— Yes,  I  quote  him ;  I  quote  a  passage  where  he  mentioned  the 
Injunctions  among  other  things. 

9970.  Then  did  you  notice  when  you  referred  to  Cosin  that 
the  passage  to  which  you  referred  does  not  only  refer  to  the 
Injunctions  but  to  the  Act  of  Uniformity  and  the  First  Prayer 
Book  of  Edward  VI.  as  belonging  to  the  second  year  of  Edward 
VI.?_Yes. 

9971.  Because  you  did  not  give  any  indication  of  that  in  the 
quotation  you  made  ? — No,  the  curious  fact  is  that  Cosin  and 
Fuller  both  regard  the  Order  of   Communion   and   the   First 
Prayer  Book 

9972.  I  am  not  dealing  with  the  Order  of  Communion  now ; 
we  have  got  away  from  that  ? — Pardon  me,  I  am  answering  the 
question  if  you  will  let  me  finish  it.     It  is  a  curious  fact  that 
Cosin  and  Fuller  regard  in  a  manner  the  First  Prayer  Book  of 
Edward  VI.  as  an  enlargement  of  the  Order  of  Communion, 
and  Fuller  speaks  of  them  really  as  one  book. 

9973.  But   Fuller  makes  a  historical  blunder  about  it  for 
which  he  is  taken  to  task  by  Heylin  ? — Yes,  I  quote  Heylin. 

9974.  I  do  not  think  you  can  take  much  from  Heylin,  but  I 
should  like  to  read  you  this  from  Cosin  and  see  what  you  would 
like  to  say  about  it ;  it  is  volume  5,  page  438  :  '  The  particulars 
of  these  ornaments  (both  of  the  church  and  of  the  ministers 
thereof  as  in  the  end  of  the  Act  of  Uniformity)  are  referred  not 
to  the  fifth  Edward  VI. ,  as  the  service  itself  is  in  the  beginning 


COSIN  ON  OENAMENTS  EUBEIC  353 

of  that  Act,  for  in  that  fifth  year  were  all  ornaments  taken 
away  (but  a  surplice  only)  both  from  bishops  and  priests,  and 
all  other  ministers,  and  nothing  was  left  for  the  church,  but  a 
font,  a  table,  and  a  linen  cloth  upon  it  (at  the  time  of  the 
Communion  only),  but  to  the  second  year  of  that  King,  when 
his  service  book  and  Injunctions  were  in  force  by  authority  of 
Parliament.' l  Then  he  goes  on,  '  Such  ornaments  as  were  in  use 
in  the  second  year  of  King  Edward  VI.  In  that  year,  by  the 
authority  of  Parliament,  was  this  order  set  forth,  in  the  end  of 
the  service  book  then  appointed.'  And  then  he  goes  on  to  quote 
very  fully  from  the  directions  not  of  the  Order  of  Communion, 
but  of  the  First  Prayer  Book?— Yes. 

9975.  And  then  he  says,  '  Hereupon  when  a  Parliament  was 
called,  in  the  fifth  year  of  King  Edward,  they  altered  the  former 
book,  and  made  another  order.'     '  But  by  the  Act  of  Uniformity 
the  Parliament  thought  fit '  (going  on  to  Elizabeth's  reign)  '  not 
to  continue  this  last  order  but  to  restore  the  first  again  which 
since  that  time  was  never  altered  by  any  other  law,  and  there- 
fore it  is  still  in  force  at  this  day.'     There  is  a  good  deal  in  that 
series  of  notes  which  is  actually  in  the  passage  to  which  you 
refer,  on  the  very  page  to  which  you  refer,  which  connects  the 
Ornaments  Eubric  with  the  First  Prayer  Book  of  Edward  VI. 
and  asserts  that  it  refers  to  the  Act  of  Uniformity  and  the  First 
Prayer  Book  ? — Yes,  but  I  have  read  it  over  and  over  again,  it 
is  a  very  confusing  passage. 

9976.  I  do  not  see  any  confusion  whatever  ? — Pardon  me. 

9977.  What  is  the  confusion  ? — When  you  read  an  author 
you  must  take  what  he  says  altogether,  and,  certainly,  Cosin 
declares  that  the  Ornaments  Eubric  sanctions  ornaments  and 
ceremonies  which  preceded  the  First  Prayer  Book,  and  he  refers 
to  the  revival  of  the  Statute  of  Henry  VIII.  by  the  Statute  of 
Elizabeth  covering  it. 

9978.  He  alludes  to  it,  certainly,  and  to  the  Injunctions,  and 
historically,  as  I  told  you,  he  makes  a  blunder  about  the  Injunc- 
tions ? — But  not  about  the  Act  of  Elizabeth. 

9979.  About  the  Act  of  Henry  VIII.,  you  mean,  do  you 
not  ? — The  Act  of  Elizabeth  reviving  the  Act  of  Henry  VIII. 

9980.  He  does  not  say  anything   about  it? — Pardon  me, 
I  have  quoted  it. 

9981.  Not  about  the  Act  of  Elizabeth  reviving  the  Act  of 
Henry  ? — It  did  not  exist  unless  it  was  revived.     It  was  repealed 
by  Mary. 


1  If  by  Service  Book  Cosin  meant  the  first  Prayer  Book,  he  was  certainly 
wrong,  for  that  Book  was  not  '  in  force  '  in  any  sense  in  Edward's  second 
year.  The  Injunctions  had  the  authority  of  Parliament,  but  not  by  the  Act 
of  Uniformity. 

A  A 


354  COSIN  AND  THE   SECOND  YEAE 

9982.  He  does  not  refer  to  that.'    Then  I  want  to  read  to  you 
further  from  what  is  printed  as  the  second  series  of  notes  which 
is  now  generally  thought  to  be  still  later  than  that  given  as  the 
third  series — it  belonged  to  a  later  period.     Cosin  says,  '  And  at 
the  celebration  of  the  Holy  Communion  it  was  ordained,  by  the 
rules  and  orders  of  the  first  liturgy  set  forth  by  the  Church  of 
England,   and   confirmed  by  authority  of   Parliament,  in  the 
second  year  of  the  reign  of  King  Edward  VI.'     There  again  he 
thinks  the  first  liturgy  was  '  confirmed  by  Authority  of  Parlia- 
ment, in  the  second  year  of  the  reign  of  King  Edward  VI.,'  and 
he  quotes  the  rubrics  fully,  '  And  at  all  other  times  of  his  mini- 
stration].    That  is,  as  is  set  forth  in  the  first  liturgy  of  King 
Edward  before-mentioned,'  and  he  refers  to  the  singing  and 
saying  of  Matins  '  by  Authority  of  Parliament ']  (his  note  is) 
'  which  confirmed  both  the  first  liturgy  and  the  Injunctions  of 
King  Edward  VI.'     So  that  all  through  Cosin  takes  it  that  the 
First  Prayer  Book  of  Edward  VI.  belongs  to  the  second  year  of 
his  reign  and  that  the  Act  of  Uniformity  of  Elizabeth  and  Eliza- 
beth's Ornaments  Eubric  refer  to  that  book  and  that  Act.     Cosin, 
as  you  tell  us  yourself,  is  a  great  authority,  and  Cosin  was  one 
of  the  1662  revisers  to  whom  our  present  rubric  is  due  ? — Yes. 

9983.  Does  not  it  look  then  as  if  in  Cosin's  opinion  the  Orna- 
ments Eubric   by  which   we   are  bound  referred  to  the  First 
Prayer  Book  of  Edward  VI  ?— I  read  that. 

9984.  Could  you  answer  me,  does  it  not  look  as  if  in  Cosin's 
opinion  the  Ornaments  Eubric  by  which  we  are  bound  referred 
to  the  First  Prayer  Book  of  Edward  VI.  ? — It  looks  from  my 
point  of  view  as  if  it  referred  to  that  and  the  Ornaments  Eubric 
together. 

9985.  There  is  no  reference  to  the  Order  of  Communion  ? — 
He  has  referred  to  the  ceremonial  existing  under  the  Order  of 
Communion. 

1  Dr.  Gibson  misses  the  point.  Cosin  (v.  438-9)  says  that  by  the 
Ornaments  Eubric  '  many  other  ornaments  are  appointed  besides  those 
named  in  the  first  Prayer  Book,'  namely,  '  those  ornaments  of  the  Church 
which  by  former  laws,  not  then  abrogated,  were  in  use  by  virtue  of  the 
Statute  25  Henry  VIII.,  and  for  them  the  provincial  constitutions  are  to 
be  consulted,  such  as  have  not  been  repealed,  standing  then  in  the  second 
year  of  King  Edward  VI.,  and  being  still  in  force  by  virtue  of  this  rubric 
and  Act  of  Parliament.'  This  is  quite  plain.  In  Cosin's  view  the  Orna- 
ments Bubric  legalised  the  usage  of  the  second  year  of  Edward,  and  that 
usage  included  ornaments  not  specified  in  the  first  Prayer  Book,  but  which 
were  legalised  by  25  Henry  VIII.,  which  was  repealed  by  Mary  and  revived 
by  Elizabeth.  It  is  all  very  clear  and  simple,  and  I  am  surprised  that  Dr. 
Gibson  could  not  see  it  even  after  I  explained  it  to  him.  Cosin,  it  is  true, 
blunders  about  the  second  year,  which,  in  common  with  several  writers  of 
that  period,  he  thought  was  1549.  Dr.  Gibson  seems  to  be  of  the  same 
opinion,  judging  from  what  he  says  in  No.  9982  in  the  official  report  of  his 
examination  of  me.  I  have  discussed  the  whole  question  in  Chapter  XIV. 


COSIN  AND  THE  SECOND  YEAE  355 

9986.  There  is  no  reference  whatever  to  the  Order  of  Com- 
munion?— There  is  reference  to   the  ceremonial  that  existed 
before  the  First  Prayer  Book. 

9987.  Under  the  Injunctions,  yes? — And  under  the  Act  of 
Henry  VIII.  as   revived   by  Elizabeth.     Cosin  embraced   (as 
Fuller  did  afterwards)  the  whole  of  that  legislation  as  covered 
by  Statute  law. 

9988.  Where  does  Cosin  refer  in  any  way  to  the  Order  of 
Communion ;   can  you   show  me  a  single   passage  in  Cosin's 
writings  (you  may  be  able  to,  I  do  not  know)  which  has  any 
reference  to  the  Order  of  Communion  ? — I  think  I  could.     It  is 
so  difficult,  when  you  have  my  book  to  mark  passages  to  cross- 
examine  me  upon,  to  meet  you  on  the  spur  of  the  moment 
without  some  time.     What  does  he  mean  here  at  page  650  in 
my  book  ?  '  When  his  Service  Book  and  Injunctions  were  in  force 
by  authority  of  Parliament,'  he  goes  on,  '  And  in  these  books 
many  other  ornaments  are  appointed ;  as,  two  lights  to  be  set 
upon  the  altar  or  Communion  Table ;  a  cope  or  vestment  for 
the  priest  and  for  the  bishop '  ? 

9989.  He  is  referring  to  the  Service  Book  and  the  Injunc- 
tions, the  Service  Book  being  the  First  Prayer  Book  of  Edward 
VI.? — But  he  goes  on  'and  those  ornaments  of  the  Church 
which  by  former  laws ' 

9990.  But   that   is  not  a  reference  to  the  Order  of  Com- 
munion ? — '  Those  ornaments  of  the  Church  which  by  former 
laws,  not  then  abrogated,  were  in  use,  by  virtue  of  the  Statute 
25  Henry  VIII.' 

9991.  That  is  entirely  different  from  the  Order  of  Communion. 
You  have  claimed  statutory  authority  for  the  Order  of  Com- 
munion ? — Yes. 

9992.  By  the  Act  of  Edward  VI.  which  ordered  Communion 
in  both  kinds  ?— Yes,  and  by  the  25th  of  Henry  VIII. 

9993.  You  were  examined  on  those,  we  cannot  go  back  to 
those.     I  think  it  was  shown  that  they  have  not  much  bearing  ? 
— But  I  submit  that   if  you  are  to  go  back  on  my  evidence 
I  ought  to  be  allowed  to  say  I  was  right.      I  was  right,  for 
example,  in  saying  that  32  Henry  VIII.,  chapter  26,  was  not 
repealed  till   Queen  Victoria's  reign.   I   have   gone  into   that 
question. 

9994.  That  I  leave  if  it  is  important :  after  that  I  suppose 
Sir  Lewis  might  examine  you  again  if  necessary,  but  I  am  not 
going  to  deal  with  a  matter  like  that.     I  think  we  have  done 
with  Cosin  now.     Now  to  go  back  to  your  answer  to  question 
No.  9114.     Sandys,  you  say,  claims  the  authority  of  Parliament 
for  the  Order  of  Communion.     Where  does  Sandys  claim  the 
authority  of  Parliament  for  the  Order  of    Communion? — By 
referring  to  the  first  and  second  year. 

A  A  2 


356  OTHER  ANGLICAN  AUTHORITIES 

9995.  You  think  that  letter  of  Sandys  that  the  ornaments 
of  the  first  and  second  year  of  Edward  VI.  are  to  be  revived 
justifies  you  in  saying  definitely  that  Sandys  claims  the  authority 
of  Parliament  for  the  Order  of  Communion  ? — I  think  so. 

9996.  And  Strype,  where  do  you  find  Strype  ? — Strype  I  have 
given,  have  I  not?     It  is  Sfcrype  1st  Volume,  Part  I. 

9997.  What  are  the  words  ? — The  words  are  the  words  that 
Sandys  uses. 

9998.  Simply  that  again  ? — But  he  does  not  give  them  as  a 
quotation. 

9999.  He  does  not  give  them  as  a  quotation,  they  are  not  in 
inverted  commas  ;   but  there  can  be  no  question  whatever  that 
he  is  referring  to  Sandys  as  his  authority.     They  are  almost  a 
verbal  quotation  ? — Yes,  but  he  corrects  Sandys. 

10000.  But  that  is  your  only  authority  ? — For  Strype — yes. 

10001.  Then,  Fuller,  as  I  think   you  know,  bungles  about 
it  altogether,  so  that  his  authority  is  of  no  value.     He  thinks 
the  Act  of  Uniformity  gave  the  authority  of  Parliament  to  the 
Order  of  Communion  at  a  subsequent  date  to  its  publication  ? 
— No,  not  that  it  gave  authority  to  it,  but  that  it  inflicts  penal 
ties  to  enforce  it. 

10002.  Heylin,  you   were   examined  about,  and   the  Com- 
missioners can  judge  for  themselves  as  we  have  it  down  on  the 
notes  ? — Yes,  I  have  quoted  Heylin. 

10003.  The  Commissioners  can  judge  for  themselves  whether 
Heylin  bears  out  your  interpretation.     Then  you  refer  to  Hay- 
ward's  '  Life  of  Edward  VI.'  ? — Yes. 

10004.  But  those  are  the  only  authorities  you  can  give  us 
for  your  belief  that  the  Order  of  Communion  had  the  authority 
of  Parliament?1 — Yes,  and  Foxe,  but  there  is  a  whole  consensus 
of  authorities  showing  that  it  is  the  '  use '  that  is  prescribed  in 
the  Ornaments  Rubric,  and  that  the  stress  must  be  on  the  '  use ' 
and  not  on  the  '  authority  of   Parliament '  including   a  most 
important  authority,  namely,  the  Committee  appointed  by  the 
House  of  Lords  in  the  year  1641,  consisting  of  ten  earls,  ten 
barons,  ten  bishops,  and  a  number  of  eminent  divines,  including 
Ussher.     They  suggested  that  the  rubric  should  be  abolished 
which  commanded  the  use  of  such  ornaments  '  as  were  in  use 
in  the  second  year.' 

10005.  Yes,  we  know  about  that  Parliamentary  Committee 
of  1641.    I  do  not  think  you  can  take  much  from  that  ? — I  think 
a  great  deal — ten  bishops. 

10006.  But  it  is  merely  a  phrase  that  is  practically  the  same 
as  that  in  the  Act  of  Uniformity? — But  there  is  nothing  about 
'authority.'     The  stress  is  laid  on  'use,'  and  Baxter  in  1688 

1  I  have  quoted  others — e.g.  Canon  Dixon  and  Dr.  Cardwell. 


EPISTLES  AND  GOSPELS  IN  ENGLISH  IN  1538      357 

refers  to  it  as  ordering  the  vestments  that  were  in  use  in  the 
second  year  of  Edward. 

10007.  That  is  a  different  point — Baxter.     But  if  you  want 
to  refer  to  that  Parliamentary  Committee,  can  you  give  us  the 
page  of  your  book  ? — It  is  page  423  '  whether  the  rubric  should 
not  be  mended,  where  all  vestments  in  time  of  divine  service 
are  now  commanded  which  were  used,  2nd  Edward  VI.'     There 
is  nothing  about  '  the  authority  of  Parliament '  there. 

10008.  That  is  very  little   different.     You  cannot  I  mean 
argue  much  from  it  as  an  interpretation  of  the  words  which 
were  in  Elizabeth's  Ornaments  Eubric,  namely, '  such  ornaments 
in  the  Church  as  were  in  use  by  authority  of  Parliament  in  the 
second  year  of  the  reign  of  King  Edward  VI. '  ? — I  can  argue 
this.     The  contemporary  interpretation,  and  the  interpretation 
down  to  our  time,  was  that  what  the  Ornaments  Eubric  referred 
to  was  the  usage  of  Edward's  second  year  and  not  the  authority 
of  Parliament, 

10009.  But  it  is  little  more  than  a  quotation  of  the  actual 
words  of  the  Ornaments  Eubric? — Yes,  but  leaving  out  the '  autho- 
rity '  shows  that  they  referred  to  what  was  in  use  in  that  year. 

10010.  No,  indeed ;  I  do  not  think  it  does.     You  can  take 
your  interpretation  as  you  please.     Now  I  think  I  understood 
from  what  you  said  just  now  in  answer  to  Mr.  Drury  that  you 
wanted  to  reassert  your  statement  that  the  Epistle  and  Gospel 
were  used  in  English  in  the  reign  of  Henry  VIII.  ? — Yes. 

10011.  Would  you  give  me  the  evidence  for  that? — Have 
you  got  the  Injunctions  of  Henry  VIII.  of  1536  ? 

10012.  I  am  afraid  I  have  not. — I  think  you  will  find  that 
they  authorise  it. 

10013.  Have  you  brought  them  with  you  ? — No,  I  have  not. 
I  found  it  asserted  by  Gee  in  his  '  Elizabethan  Prayer  Book.' 

10014.  That  the  Epistle  and  Gospel  were  ordered  to  be  used 
in  English  ? — Authorised  in  English  by  the  Injunctions  of  1536. 

10015.  Can  you  give  us  the  reference  to  Gee  ? — No,  I  cannot. 
I  got  the  book  last  night  and  I  looked  it  up  just  before  I  was 
starting  and,  afraid  of  being  too  late,  I  could  not  verify  it.     But 
it  is  in  Gee's  book. 

10016.  It  is  rather  difficult  if  you  come  with  an  assertion  of 
something  you  say  you  have  looked  up  and  cannot  give  us  the 
reference? — It  is  not  half  so  difficult  as  to  be  asked  to  give 
references  without  any  knowledge  beforehand  of  the  questions 
that  are  going  to  be  asked. 

10017.  But  you  are  only  being  examined  on  your  own  state- 
ments in  the  past.1 

1  That  is  not  correct.  I  was  examined  without  warning  by  Dr.  Gibson 
and  others  on  my  book  on  The  Reformation  Settlement,  which  I  had  not 
read  for  five  years. 


358      PKIMERS  USED  IN  PUBLIC  SEEVICES 

10018.  (Sir  Lewis  Dibdin.)     It  is  at  page  65  of  Gee's  book. 

10019.  (Rev.  Dr.  Gibson.)     Gee  says  :   '  The  Epistle,  Gospel 
and   Commandments   in   English  had   been   legalised   by   the 
Injunctions  of  1536  and  those  have  never  been  repealed '  ?— 
An  English  translation  was  authorised  then  for  Processionals. 
Henry's  Primer  in  English  was  authorised  then. 

10020.  The  Primer  was  not  a  service  book  ? — I  said  occasional 
services. 

10021.  That  was  private  devotion? — Yes,  partly.1 

10022.  That  is  a  very  different  thing  from  the  authorised 
services.-     I  take  your  statement  as  to  the  Epistle  and  Gospel 
of  course  being  legalised ;  whether  there  is  any  evidence  that 
they  were  used  I  am  not  aware.      The  Processional  of  course  is 
covered  by  the  Litany  which  you  spoke  of   before,  and  was 
admitted.     Was  there  anything  else  that  you  can  tell  me  of  in 
English  ?— Of  course  the  authorisation  of  the  English  translation 
of  the  Bible  was  an  important  fact. 

10023.  But  how   far   does   that   bear    on   the   services   in 
English? — All  I  meant  was   that  there  was  a  tendency  con- 
siderably before  the  death  of  Henry  in  the  direction  of  changing 
the  services  to  the  reformed  use. 

10024.  A  tendency  you  meant,  but  your  words  were  that  '  a 
great  part  of  the  service  was  in  English'?— The  Litany,  the 
Epistle,  and  Gospel.     You  are  quoting  my  book. 

10025.  No,  I  am  quoting  from  page  1065  of  your  evidence ; 
that  is  the  place  where  I  interposed  the  questions.     You  said, 
'  A  great  many  things  had  been  abolished  under  Henry  VIII., 
and  in  the  early  years  of  Edward  VI.,  and  a  great  part  of  the 
service  was  in  English '  ? — In  the  early  years  of  Edward  VI. 

10026.  Then  I  asked  you,  '  Did  I  rightly  understand  you  to 
say  that  at  the  death  of  Henry  VIII.  a  great  part  of  the  service 
was  in  English,'  and  you  were  questioned  on  that  ? — I  meant 
Edward  VI.  at  the  beginning.     The  Compline  was  in  English 
just  at  the  death  of  Henry  VIII. 

10027.  Not  at  the  death,  after  the  death  ? — Well,  immediately 
after. 

10028.  Then,  I  think,  I  must  press  you  on  this.     You  do  not 
seem  to  me  to  realise  the  extraordinary  difference  there  was 
between  the  last  year  of  Henry  VIII.  and  the  first  and  second 
years  of  Edward  VI.     You  argue  from  Elizabeth's  language  to 
De  Peria,  where  she  speaks  of  restoring  religion  as  it  was  at 
the  death  of  her  father,  as  if  that  meant  that  she  was  going 
back  to  the  early  years  of  Edward  VI.  ? — No. 

10029.  Excuse  me,  that  is  your  argument? — But  surely  I 
can  explain  myself.     I  did  not  mean  that,  because  I  have  said  in 

1  But  public  also. 

2  But  the  Primers  were  '  authorised  fervices.' 


ELIZABETH  AND  HENEY  VIII. 

other  parts  of  my  evidence  (as  well  as  in  my  book)  that  she 
regarded  probably  as  a  legacy  of  Henry  VIII.  the  result  of  the 
committees  appointed  by  Convocation  under  Statutory  authority 
to  revise  the  Service  Books,  and  that  they  had  finished  a  great 
part  of  their  work  at  the  death  of  Henry  VIII.,  and  you  will 
find  in  the  very  first  sitting  of  Convocation  the  Lower  House 
of  Convocation  asked  the  Upper  House  to  produce  the  revisions 
they  had  made  under  that  Commission  of  Henry  VIII.  All 
that  was  known  to  Elizabeth,  and  she  regarded  that  as  part  of 
the  legacy  left  to  her  by  her  father. 

10030.  You   are   reading  a    great   deal    into    your  words. 
According  to  you  l  she  said,  '  That  she  was  resolved  to  restore 
religion  precisely  as  it  had  been  left  by  her  father,'  and  you  infer 
that  in  saying  that  she  made  a  clean  breast  of  her  religious 
convictions  and  political  intentions  with  a  frankness  which  left 
nothing  to  be  desired?— Yes. 

10031.  You  take  it  as  Elizabeth's  own  authentic  interpretation 
of  the  ornaments  clause  in  the  Act  of  Uniformity,  but  then  you 
go  on  to  say,  '  With  her  usual  astuteness  the  Queen  made  her 
brother,  instead  of  her  father,  the  figure  head  of  her  religious 
restoration  '  ? — Yes. 

10032.  And  then  you  say,  '  Elizabeth,  therefore,  fixed  on  the 
ceremonial  of  Edward's  second  regnal  year  as  the  goal  of  her 
reformation.'      In   point   of   fact,  this  was  precisely  what  she 
told,  in  other  phrase,  to  the  Spanish  confidential  envoy  ? — Yes. 

10033.  I  can  only  understand  those  words  as  meaning  that 
religion  in  the  second  year  of  Edward  VI.  was  the  same  as  it 
was  left  by  Henry  VIII.  ? — No,  I  may  explain  my  own  words. 
She  knew  what  the  Commission  appointed  by  Henry  VIII.  had 
done,  a  great  part  of  their  work  was  finished  at  the  death  of 
her  father,  and  was  ready  for  publication — ready  for  authori- 
sation. 

10034.  But   'religion  as  left  by  her  father'  included  what 
is  commonly  known  as  the  Whip  with  Six  Strings,  or  sometimes 
referred  to  as  the  Bloody  Statute  of  the  Six  Articles  ? 2 — Yes. 

10035.  And  you  know  what  that  meant.    And  it  also  included 
the  whole  system  of  chantries  and  included  hardly  any  service 
in  English — a  little  but  that  is  all  ? — I  should  not  admit  that 
that  came  at  all  within  her  meaning. 

10036.  Then  you  are  putting  into  her  words  a  meaning  which 
certainly  they  do  not  bear  on  the  surface  ? — No,  I  think  they 
quite  legitimately  bear  the   meaning   I  put  upon  them.     She 

'•  This  is  not  quite  fair.  The  words  quoted  by  Dr.  Gibson  as  mine  are 
really  quoted  by  me  from  Spencer  Hall's  book  on  the  Simancas  Documents. 

2  That  Act  was  much  modified  before  Henry's  death.  The  whole  of 
these  sentences  is  a  great  exaggeration.  See  Chapter  XIII. 


360  ELIZABETH  AND  MAEY 

could  not  possibly  mean  the  Act  called  the  Whip  with  Six  Strings. 
That  was  an  Act  of  Parliament ;  that  was  not  religion. 

10037.  It  had  nothing  to  do  with  religion,  do  you  say  ? — 
I  did  not  say  it  had  nothing  to  do  with  religion.     It  was  not 
religion.     What  she  meant  by  '  religion '  was  the  externals  of 
public  worship.     An  Act  of  Parliament  is  not  religion  ;  it  is  not 
a  rite,  it  is  not  a  ceremonial. 

10038.  But  that  Act  had  a  great  deal  to  do  with  religious 
belief  and  practice  ? — So  it  had ;  but  it  was  not  religion. 

10039.  You  seem  to  me  to  minimise  the  term  '  religion  '  when 
you  whittle  it  down  to  ceremonial  ? — No,  I  understand  that  she 
meant  that  she  would  leave  the  faith  and  its  external  expres- 
sion very  much  as  it  was  left  by  the  legislation  of  her  father, 
including  the  Eevision  of  the  Service  Books. 

10040.  And  you  are  aware  that  to  restore  the  services  as 
they  were  left  by  Henry  VIII.  was  exactly  what  Elizabeth's 
sister  did  ? — No,  pardon  me  ;  Mary  repealed  several  Statutes  of 
Henry  VIII. 

10041.  But  she  restored  the  ceremonial.     Mary's  first  Act  of 
Eepeal  said  definitely,  '  That  no  other  kind  nor  order  of  Divine 
Service  nor  Administrations  of  Sacraments  be  after  the  said 
20th  day  of  December  used  or  ministered  in  any  other  manner, 
form  or  degree  within  the  said  Eealm  of  England  or  other  the 
Queen's  Dominions  than  was  most  commonly  used,  ministered 
and  frequented  in  the  said  last  year  of  the  reign  of  the  said  late 
King  Henry  VIII.'  ?  —Yes. 

10042.  So  that,  according  to  you,  Elizabeth  wished  to  do  at 
the  beginning  of  her  reign  exactly  what  Mary  had  done  at  the 
beginning  of  hers  in  regard  to  ceremonial  ? — No,  I  do  not  admit 
that  at  all.    You  cannot  take  expressions  divorced  from  all  their 
context  and  the  historical  acts  of  the  person  who  speaks. 

10043.  The  language  is  the  same,  that  is  enough  for  me. — 
But  the  context  makes  all  the  difference.1 

10044.  (Sir  John  Kennaway .}  Would  you    kindly  tell   me 
whether  my  view  of  your  reading  of  all  these  documents  is 
correct :  that  when  Queen  Elizabeth  got  into  power  her  sym- 
pathies were  entirely  with  the  old  system  of  religion? — That 
very  much  depends  upon  what  you  mean  by  the  old  system  of 
religion. 

10045.  The  religion  as  it  was  in  the  time  of  Henry  VIII.? — 

1  The  system  of  religious  worship  which  Mary  abolished  was  that 
established  by  the  second  Prayer  Book;  and  that  system  Elizabeth  also 
abolished  by  the  Ornaments  Bubric,  which  legalised  public  worship  much 
as  it  had  been  left  by  her  father.  '  The  language  is  the  same,  that  is 
enough  for  me,"  is  surely  a  shallow  kind  of  historical  criticism.  I  have 
dealt  with  the  whole  of  Dr.  Gibson's  criticism  on  these  particular  points  in 
Chapter  XIII. 


SIB  J.  KBNNA WAY'S  QUESTIONS  361 

What  I  mean  is  that  her  own  sympathies  would  persuade  her  to 
sanction  the  religious  ceremonial  existing  in  practice  in  the 
second  year  of  King  Edward  VI.  She  wanted,  I  believe,  the 
First  Prayer  Book  of  Edward  VI.  adopted  with  the  ceremonial 
which  was  legally  in  use  in  the  second  year  of  Edward ;  that  of 
course  would  be  the  service  in  English.  The  Latin  Mass  would 
have  been  done  away  with ;  but  the  Holy  Communion  as 
celebrated  in  the  First  Prayer  Book  of  Edward  VI.  with  the 
ceremonies  that  had  been  in  use  in  the  second  year  of  Edward 
would  have  her  sanction. 

10046.  That  she  took  the  steps  which  she  took  with  a  view 
of  bringing  about  a  restoration  of  that  state  of  things  ? — Yes, 
I  think  so. 

10047.  And  that  nothing  was  done,  no  further  order  was 
taken,  to  alter  that  ? — No ;  whatever  further  order  she  took  (and 
she  took  more  than  one)  was  in  the  direction  of  introducing 
additional  ceremonial  and  usages. 

10048.  It  was  all  additional  ceremonial  ? — Yes. 

10049.  And  that  the  sympathies  of  the  country  were  with 
her? — Undoubtedly.     Froude   says   that   three-fourths  of   the 
population  in  England  were  entirely  with  her,  at  least  three- 
fourths. 

10050.  In  fact,  everything  was  done  really  to  bring  about 
the  state  of  things  as  it  existed  in  the  second  year  of  Edward 
VI.  ? — Yes,  generally  speaking,  that  is  to  say,  in  public  worship. 

10051.  Then  can  you  explain  to  me  how  it  is  that  these  cere- 
monials and  ordinances  disappeared  for  nearly  200  years  and 
were  almost  entirely  dropped  out  of  use  ? — I  do  not  think  they 
had    at    all    disappeared   so    much    as  people   imagine.     For 
example,  you  find  that  when  Grindal  became  Archbishop  of 
York  in  1570  or  1571  he  found  the  old  ceremonial  still  in  exist- 
ence— the  crucifix,  the  rood  loft,  incense,  vestments  and  all  the 
rest. 

10052.  That  was  in  one  church,  in  the  Cathedral  of  York  ? — 
No,  he  does  not  say  in  one  church ;  he  says  in  the  whole  diocese. 

10053.  When   did   they   disappear,  because  you  will  admit 
that  they  had  disappeared  at  the  end,  say,  of  the  18th  century  ? 
— No,  not  all. 

10054.  Almost  entirely  ? — You  see  the  Commonwealth  made 
a  clean  sweep  of  everything,  the  surplice  and  everything,  and 
the  Prayer  Book  was  made  illegal.     It  is  only  within  fifty  or 
sixty  years  that  we  began  to  recover  from  that  devastation. 

10055.  But  how  would  the  state  of  things  come  about  which 
it  is  admitted  existed  at  the  end  of  the  18th  century  ? — I  quote 
in  my  book  a  letter  from  Burleigh,  who  gives   a  most  awful 
account  of  the   state  of  religion  in  a  large  part  of  England. 
People  ceased  to  go  to  church,  the  Holy  Communion  was  not 


362      AEGUMENT  FROM  VISITATION   AETICLES 

celebrated  even  once  a  year,  and  cock-fights  were  held  in 
churches  on  Sundays.  The  state  of  things  he  describes  at  the 
latter  end  of  the  reign  of  Elizabeth  would  be  perfectly  incre- 
dible if  we  had  not  evidence  for  it.  Irreligion  became  rampant 
in  the  country,  and  public  worship  ceased  in  a  great  part  of  the 
land. 

10056.  (Bishop  of  Oxford.)     You  said  in  answer  to  Sir  John 
Kennaway  that  Elizabeth  on  more  than  one  occasion  took  further 
order,  and  that  it  was  always  in  the  direction  of  introducing 
additional  ceremonial.     Was  that  so  ? — I  think  so. 

10057.  What  were  the  occasions  ?— Wafer  bread  for  one,  the 
crucifix  for  another. 

10058.  When  did  she  take  further  order  ?— I  give  the  autho- 
rity in  my  book.     She  sent  orders  to  the  Bishops  under  formal 
Letters  Patent.     She  added  various  things  to  the  Prayer  Book ; 
for  example,  Stephens  in  his  book  on  the  Prayer  Book  gives  a 
number  of  things  which  she   added   to   the   Prayer   Book   in 
addition  to  the  shape  it  had  when  it  came  from  Parliament. 

10059.  You  are  familiar  with   certain   Visitation   Eeturns 
which  are  often  quoted  as  showing  the  disorder  in  the  Church 
of  England  prior  to  the  issue  of  the  Advertisements  ? — Yes. 

10060.  It  was  in  the  year  1561,  or  thereabouts,  that  these 
Visitation  Eeturns  were  made  ? — You  have  some  coming  down 
from  the  beginning  of  Edward  VI. 

10061.  But  I  am  speaking  of  Elizabeth's  reign,  and  of  a 
special  Eeport  based  on  Visitation  Articles,  I  think,  showing 
the  irregularity  ;  how  some  celebrated  the  Holy  Communion  at 
an  Altar  and  some  at  a  table  set  on  trestles  ? — Yes. 

10062.  Do  you  remember  the   document  ? — Yes,  I   do  ;    I 
know  the  document. 

10063.  Can  you  account  for  this,  that  in  the  diversity  there 
is,  I  think,  no  mention  of  deviations  in  the  direction  which  you 
suppose  the  Queen's  mind  to  have  gone? — There   are  bitter 
complaints  on  the  part  of  Jewel  and  a  number  of  other  leading 
Puritans  of  the  Queen's  reactionary  proceedings :  of  her  restoring 
the  crucifixes  in  the  churches. 

10064.  I  am  not  asking  about  that,  if  you  will  pardon  me ; 
I  am  asking  about  the  account  of  the  diversity  of  order  which 
led  up  to  the  issue  of  the  Advertisements,  and  I  am  asking  you 
whether  you  can  account  for  the  fact  that  while  there  is  mention 
of  a   great   irregularity   in  the  Puritan  direction   there  is  no 
mention  of  irregularity  in  the  contrary  direction  ? — But  I  do  not 
know  what  you  would  mean   by  irregularity   in   the  contrary 
direction.   It  would  not  be  irregularity  if  they  were  obeying  the 
law. 

10065.  Then  I  will  use  my  former  word,  deviation  ? — But  it 
would  not  be  deviation  if  they  were  following  the  law  laid  down. 


DISAPPEAEANCE  OF  VESTMENTS  363 

10066.  (Archbishop  of  Canterbury.)     I  am  not  quite  sure 
that  I  quite  caught  in  its  fulness  your  reply  to  a  question  that 
was  put  down  about  the  explanation  you  would  give  of   the 
discontinuance,  practically,  of  the  use  of  vestments  and  orna- 
ments for  some  300  years.     If  I  caught  you  aright  you  replied 
that  religion  itself  was  at  a  very  low  ebb,  and  that  the  dis- 
appearance of  these  things  with  such  small  exceptions  as  do 
not  come  to  very  much  is  to  be  explained   by  the  decay  of 
religion  ? — And  the  iconoclasm  of  the  Puritan  Party,  especially 
in  towns.     We  have  very  little  information  of  what  took  place 
in  rural  districts. 

10067.  But  take   the  teaching  and  policy  of  trained  men 
like  Andrews,  Laud,  Cosin,  and  many  more.     If  it  were  at  that 
moment  of  legal  obligation  that  the  Ornaments  Eubric,  as  you 
interpret  it,  should  be  obeyed,  is  it,  or  is  it  not,  startling  to  you 
that  those  men  do  not  seem  to  have  taken  the  course  which 
you  in  their  position  would  have  taken  of  insisting  that  these 
vestments  and  other  things  should  be  used? — My  answer  to 
that  would  be  that  they  found  it  extremely  difficult  to  get  the 
Puritans  to  wear  a  surplice.     For  instance,  a  Puritan  incumbent 
in  the  City  of  London,  when  Laud  was  Bishop  of  London  and 
issued  a  peremptory  order  for  the  use  of  the  surplice  at  least, 
professed  to  obey  the  order,  as  a  contemporary  describes  it,  by 
going  in  his  ordinary  dress  into  the  reading  desk  and  putting 
his  leg  over  the   side  of  the  reading   desk  and   hanging   the 
surplice  on  his  foot  in  derision,  thereby  obeying,  as  he  said, 
the  order  of  the  Bishop  and  bowing  the  knee  to  Baal. 

10068.  What  was  done  by  the  non-jurors  ? — The  non-jurors 
tried  to  restore  the  ornaments  of  the  Ornaments  Kubric  as  they 
understood  it. 

10069.  Do  you  find  that  the  non-jurors  were  in  the  habit 
of  celebrating  the  Holy  Communion  in  vestments  ? — They  used 
incense  certainly. 

10070.  Do  you  find  that  they  were   in   the   habit  of  cele- 
brating the  Holy  Communion  in  vestments  ? — I  cannot  answer 
on  the  spur  of  the  moment,  but  I  should  think  probably  so. 

10071.  Is  there  any  evidence  that  they  did  ? — I  cannot  answer 
at  the  moment. 

10072.  But  I  am  sure  you  have  studied  the  subject  fully  ? 
— Yes,  but  I  did  not  go  much  into  the  question  of  the  non- 
jurors.     But  let  me  quote  you  here  what  I  think  is  a  rather 
important  piece  of  evidence.     In  a  letter  to  the  Guardian  in 
July  1874,  Dr.  Christopher  Wordsworth  says,  '  It  has  been  left 
on  record  by  a  Fellow   of   Balliol  College,    Oxford,   that   his 
Master  Theophilus  Leigh  wore  a  vestment  at  the  Communion 
in  his  country  parish  at   Huntspill,  near  Bridgewater,  about 
1770.'     I  have  no  doubt  that  if  we  had  the  evidence  we  could 
find  many  of  those  cases  existing. 


364     THE  COPE  OBLIGATORY,  BUT  VANISHED 

10073.  There  has  been,  of  course,  a  very  careful  search,  and 
you  think  that  that  search  if  it  had  been  more  effective  would 
have  shown  a  great  deal  more  use  ? — Yes,  a  great  deal  more. 
But  remember  that  for  a  long  time  after  the   last  revision  the 
Bishops  found  it  extremely  difficult  to  get  the  ordinary  rubrics 
of  the  Prayer  Book  observed  at  all.     Daily  service  went  out  of 
use.     It  is  admitted  by  the  Judicial  Committee,  is  it  not,  that 
the  cope  was  obligatory  all  along  in  cathedrals  upon  certain 
days,  but  the  cope  went  clean  out  of  use. 

10074.  Does  that  tell  on  your  side? — I  think  so.     If  the 
cope,  which  is   admitted   not  only   to    have    been  legal   but 
peremptorily  legal,  went  out  of  use  it  shows  that  the  authorities 
of  the   time   were  either   negligent  or,  where  they  were   not 
negligent,  found  that  they  could  not  enforce  the  cope. 

10075.  Supposing  it  was  put  the  other  way,  that  so  complete 
was  the  disappearance  of  the  kind  of  usages  of  which  that  was 
one,  that  even  that  particular  usage,  though  prescribed  in  the 
canon,  disappeared  with  the  rest,  what  should  you  say  ? — But 
if  you  admit  that  the  cope  was  legal  and  obligatory,  it  shows 
that  no  argument,  in  my  humble  opinion,  can  be  built  upon 
the  fact  of  its  disappearance  with  regard  to  its  not  having  been 
legal. 

10076.  (Chairman.)  Now,  if  there   is   any   statement  you 
wish  to  make  will  you  please  do  so  ? — May  I  answer  a  question 
that  I  did  not  fully  answer  last  time  ?     It  is  on  pages  1094-95 
of  my  evidence.     You  asked  me  this  question,  '  I  should  just 
like  to  ask  you  one  question.   Assuming  your  view  to  be  correct 
that  the  words  in  the  Act  "  in  the  second  year  of  the  reign  of 
King  Edward  VI."  refer  to  the  words  "  in  use,"  rather  than 
the  words  "  by  authority  of  Parliament,"  why  should  that  par- 
ticular date  have  been  taken  ?     You  have  just  told  us  that  in 
your  opinion  the  ornaments  were  the  same  in  the  first  year  as 
they  were  in  the  second  ? '     My  answer  to  that  is  this  :  The 
Act  giving  statutory  force  as  I  hold  (I  know  it  is  disputed) 
to  the   Order  of   Communion   was   passed   in   the   first   year 
of   Edward,  but  its  use  was  not  legal  until  the  second  year. 
I  mean  to  say  it  did  not  come  into  force  until  Easter  of  the 
second  year,  and  that   is   my   explanation.     The   Ornaments 
Eubric  referred  to  the  usage  of  the  second  year  which  bad  been 
legalised  in  the  first  year,  whereas   Sandys  takes  both  years 
into  consideration.     The  usage  of  the  second  year  was  legalised 
by  the  first  year. 

10077.  (Sir  Lewis  Dibdin.)  You  did  say  very  much  what 
you  say  now  in  answer  to  the  Chairman,  but  then  you  were 
asked  when  the  Order  of  Communion  did  come  into  operation, 
and  if  my  memory  serves  me  you  were  not  able  to  tell  us  ? — 
Then  I  can  tell  you  now.     It  came  into  legal  use  at  Easter  in 
the  second  year. 


DESIEE   OF  MAJOEITY  WAS  FEUSTEATED     365 

10078.  How  do  you  know  that  ? — Because  the  circular  letter, 
the  letter  of  Somerset  and  Cranmer  and  the  Privy  Council  to  the 
Bishops,  says  so. 

10079.  (Mr.  Talbot.)  I  understood  you  to  say  in  answer  to 
Sir  John  Kennaway  that  your  view  of  the  earlier  part  of  Queen 
Elizabeth's  reign  was  that  the  Queen  was  anxious  to  bring  back 
as  much  as  she  could  of  what  was  called  the  old  religion,  and 
that  three-fourths,  I  think  you  said,  of  the  nation  were  on  her 
side  in  that  desire  ? — Yes. 

10080.  If  so,  how  was  it  that  the  wish  of  three-fourths  of 
the  nation  was  so  entirely  disappointed  ? — Because  I  think  that 
a  great  many  of  those,  for  instance  Dudley,  who  now  turns 
out  to  have  been  a  crypto-Eoman  Catholic  all  the  time,  had 
great  influence  with  the  Queen,  and  her  courtiers  had  great 
influence  with  her,  and  those  who  wanted  the  spoils  of  the 
Church  used  their  influence,  and  she  had   all   that  influence 
working  upon  her  in  that  direction.     But  all  authorities   are 
agreed,  Macaulay,   Froude,   and  the  rest,   that   about    three- 
fourths  of  the  nation  at  least  would  have  been  content  with 
the  old  state  of  things,  but  that  the  Jesuits  and  the  Pope  pre- 
cipitated matters.     It  is  on  record  that  a  number  of  the  Eoman 
Catholic    seminary   priests    figured   as   Dissenting   preachers, 
Puritan  preachers,  denouncing  the  Prayer  Book. 

10081.  That  means,  I  suppose,  that  the  influence  of  these 
people  prevailed  over  the  desire  of  the  great  majority  of   the 
nation  ? — Yes,  I  believe,  undoubtedly  so ;  so  Macaulay  says, 
and  so  Hallam,  I  think,  says  too. 

10082.  Could  you  explain  at  all  how  this  desire  of  the  large 
majority  of  the  nation  expressed   itself? — It  expressed  itself, 
I  think,  by  their  acquiescence  in  the  old  state  of  things  as  I 
believe  it,  as  we  have  it  on  record  from  Grindal,  whom  I  have 
just  quoted,  that  the  old  ceremonial  remained  at  York  when 
he  went  there  in  1570.     And  Macaulay,  Hallam,  and  the  rest 
say  that  a  large  part  of  the  nation  would  have  been  content 
with  the   old  religion,   but   many   of    them    were   somewhat 
indifferent — they  were  not  enthusiastic  one  way  or  the  other ; 
but  on  the  whole  they  preferred   the  old  religion.      You  re- 
member there  was  rather  a  formidable  rebellion  in  Devonshire 
when  the  Order  of  the  Communion  was  introduced. 

10083.  They  could  not  have  been  very  keen  in  their  desire 
for  the   maintenance   of    the    old   form    of    religion   if    they 
acquiesced  so  easily  in  its  removal  ? — No,  but  they  were  con- 
tent with  it ;  they  had  no  objection  to  it.     The  Puritans  called 
themselves  'pusillus  grex' — a  tiny  flock. 

10084.  And  you  think  that  by  these  machinations  of  Eoman 
Catholic  emissaries  the  wish  of  the  people  was  neutralised  ? — 
Yes,  and  Bacon  says  so  in  a  very  important  State  document 


366  WITHDRAWAL  OF  AN  ADMISSION 

that  I  quote  in  my  book.  He  says  the  trouble  of  the  time  was 
how  to  settle  the  matter  between  the  outrages  and  violence  of 
Puritans  on  one  side  and  the  intrigues  and  machinations  of  the 
Eomanists  on  the  other.  The  Queen  tried  to  steer  the  best 
course  she  could  under  the  difficulties. 

10085.  (Chairman.)  Is  there  any  other  statement  you  wish 
to  make,  only  on  matters  of  fact? — It  is  entirely  on  matters  of 
fact.     I  wish  to  say  first  to  Sir  Lewis  Dibdin  that  I  was  quite 
in  error  in  admitting  the  other  day  that  I  relied  entirely  on  the 
statement  in  Strype. 

10086.  (Sir  Lewis  Dibdin.)  What  statement  in  Strype  do 
you  allude  to  ? — About  Guest.     I  find  from  a  package  of  notes 
of  mine  that  I  did  look  up  the  original.     I  went  into  the  whole 
question  when  I  was  writing  my  book,  and  I  have  made  up 
my  mind  that  Gee  has  not  made  out  his  case,  and  I  do  not 
believe  there  is  any  doubt  at  all,  for  all  the  authorities  (and 
Hallarn  among  them)  attribute  that  string  of  questions  to  Cecil, 
and  that  Guest's  statements  are  as  Strype  suggests,  answers  to 
those  questions.    I  do  not  want  to  argue  the  matter  ;  I  merely 
want  it  to  be  put  on  record  that  I  withdraw  the  admissions 
I  made  on  that  point  as  not  having  consulted  the  authorities 
referred  to  by  Strype.     I  did  refer  to  them  and  formed  my  own 
conclusion. 

10087.  Can  you  give  the  reference  to  Hallam  ? — '  Constitu- 
tional History,'  volume  I.,  page  110,  I  think.     May  I  go  to 
another  point  of  fact  ?     I  was  very  much  struck  in  the  first 
Act,  chapter  12  (is  it  not  ?)  of  Edward  VI.,  which  in  the  mar- 
ginal note   of   one   edition   of   the    Statutes  says,    '  Eepealed 
32  Henry  VIII.,  chapter  26.'      Statutes  and  chapters  said  to 
be  repealed  are  enumerated  till  it  comes  to  the  31st  Henry  VIII., 
and  then  it  jumps  down  to  the  34  and  then  to  the  35,  and 
then  it  says,  '  And  all  other  Acts,'  and  so  forth,  are  repealed. 
I  looked  it  out,  and  I  have  examined  the  Statutes  of  the  Realm, 
which  are  the  only  authentic  edition  of  the  Statutes  that  we 
have,  namely,  the  Statutes  issued  by  the  authority  of  Parliament 
in  the  reign  of  George  III.     You  remember  that  that  edition 
of  the  Statutes  has  the  very  highest  authority.     The  House 
of  Commons  made  an  address  to  the  King  that  a  new  authentic 
and  complete  edition  of  the  Statutes  should  be  published.     The 
King  replied  by  appointing  a  very  able  and  powerful   Com- 
mission, including  Pitt,  the  three  principal  Secretaries  of  State, 
the  Law  Officers  of  the  Crown,  the  Lord  Advocate  of  Scotland, 
and  a  number  of  other  eminent  men  to  revise  the  Statutes 
entirely.    That  was  in  the  year  1800.    A  second  Commission  was 
appointed  carrying  on  the  work  in  the  year  1806,  and  I  find 
that  in  that  edition  of  the  Statutes,  which  in  the  introduction 
they  say  is   the  only  complete   and  authentic  edition  of  the 


?32  H.  VIII.  C.  26,  EEPEALED  BY  1  ED.  VI.  C.  12   367 

Statutes,  they  leave  out  the  marginal  note  that  the  first  Statute 
of  Edward  VI.  repeals  it  and  put  in  this  :  '  All  Acts  respecting 
doctrine  and  matters  of  religion  repealed,'  and  then  they  enu- 
merate those  that  were  repealed  by  number,  5  Eichard  II., 
Statute  2,  chapter  5;  2  Henry  V.,  Statute  1,  chapter  7; 
25  Henry  VIII.,  chapter  14 ;  31  Henry  VIII.,  chapter  14 ; 
34  Henry  VIII.,  chapter  1 ;  and  35  Henry  VIII.,  chapter  5.  So 
that  they  leave  out  as  unrepealed  32  Henry  VIII.,  and  omit 
the  marginal  note  in  the  previous  editions,  which  said  it  was 
repealed. 

10088.  As  I  understand  your  point  it  is  this  :    that  although 
in  the  Statutes  at  Large  and  all  authorised  editions1  of  the 
existing  Statutes  there  is  a  note  against  this  Act  of  Henry  VIII., 
upon  which  you  rely,  saying  that  it  was  repealed  by  the  Act  of 
1  Edward  VI.,  chapter  12,  by  the  general  words  in  that  Act, 
nevertheless  when  you  look  at  the  Statutes  of  the  Realm,  which, 
as  you  rightly  say,  is  a  very  authoritative  publication,  you  do 
not  find  any  note  of  that  kind  ? — Yes. 

10089.  That  is  the  point  ?— That  is  one  point. 

10090.  We  will  deal  with  that  first.     Do  you  seriously  put 
that  before  the  Commission  ? — I  do,  because 

10091.  Never  mind  because  ;  but  you  do? — Yes,  I  do. 

10092.  Then  I  must  ask  you  :  Are  you  not  aware  that  the 
Statutes  of  the  Eealm  is  an  edition  of  all  the  Statutes  that  ever 
were  passed,  repealed  and  unrepealed,  and  that   there   is  no 
note  of  any  Act  having  been  repealed  at  all,  it  not  being  the 
purpose  of  the  edition,  but  the  purpose  of  the  edition  being  to 
supply  an  authoritative  edition  of  the  Statutes  repealed  and 
unrepealed.     Are  you  not  aware  of  that  ? — I  do  not  know  that. 
I  accept  it  absolutely  as  you  put  it. 

10093.  May  I  refer  you  then  to  an  Act  that  you  have  men- 
tioned to-day,  the  1st  Mary,  chapter  2,  which  repealed  all  the 
Eeforming  Statutes  up  to  that  date  ?    I  have  it  before  me  in 
the  Statutes  of  the  Eealm,  it  is  at  page  202  of  the  volume  of 
Mary's  Statutes,  and  that  is  also  given  without  any  note  at  the 
end  that  it  has  been  repealed  ? — Yes. 

10094.  Can  you  explain  that  on  your  view  ? — Yes,  I  accept 
that,  if  you  mean  that  point. 

10095.  But  surely  this  is  not  a  matter  of  controversy?    The 
Statutes  of  the  Eealm  is,  as  I  say,  is  it  not,  an  edition  of  the 
Statutes,  whether  repealed  or  unrepealed,  and  if  you  or  any  of 
us  want  to  find  the  terms  of  a  repealed  Statute  we  should  go 
not  to  the  edition  of  Statutes  now  in  force,  but  to  this  folio 
edition  of  the  Statutes  of  the  Eealm ;    is  not  that  so  ? — May 
I  interject  one  question?     It  does  not,  does  it,  give  all  the 
Statutes  ?    For  instance,  I  looked  for  one  that  you  used  your- 

1  The  only  '  authorised '  edition  is  TJie  Statutes  of  the  Realm. 


368         GENERAL  AND  SPECIFIC  REPEALS 

self  for  the  union  of  the  parishes  of  Ongar  and  Greensteed,  in 
Essex.     It  is  not  in  that  book. 

10096.  No ;    that  it  is  quite  true,  it  is  not ;    it   does   not 
appear  to  be  on  the  Roll  of  Parliament.     But  it  gives,  does 
it  not,  all  the  Statutes  which  are  on  the  Roll  of  Parliament, 
which  is,  with  very  small  exceptions,  every  Statute  ? — Yes. 

10097.  The  Greensteed  Statute  was  really  a  private  Act  ? — Yes. 

10098.  Can   you  draw   any  inference    from   the   fact  that 
a    Memorandum    does   not   exist   in   the   copy   of    the  Act  1 
Edward  VI.,  chapter  12,  as  to   its  effect  in  repealing  former 
Statutes  ? — Not  by  itself. 

10099.  I  will  deal  with  the  other  point  afterwards.     Can 
you  point  to  any  Memorandum  in  the  Statutes  of  the  Realm 
indicating  that  a  Statute  which  is  given  in  the  text  has  been 
repealed  ? — No,  not  at  the  present  moment. 

10100.  Now  let  us  deal  with  the  marginal  note.     The  mar- 
ginal notes  in  the  copy  of  Acts  of  Parliament  in  the  Statutes 
of  the  Realm  are,  are  they  not,  to  indicate  what  is  in  the  text 
— what  the  text  consists  of  ? — Yes. 

10101.  Like  any  other  marginal  notes  ? — Yes. 

10102.  And  these  marginal  notes  you  have  read  are  merely 
those,  are  they  not,  the  marginal  notes  to  the  second  section 
of  the  Act  which  deals  with  repeals  ? — Yes. 

10103.  That  is  the  nature  of  them  ?— Yes. 

10104.  They  are  not,  as  I  think  you  have  read  them,  in  one 
marginal  note,  but  against  the  words  of  repeal  of  each  separate 
Statute,  you  get  in   the   margin  the   short  reference   to   that 
Statute  ?— Yes. 

1 0105.  And  that  is  the  practice  in  all  Acts  of  Parliament, 
ancient  and  modern.  It  is  the  practice  to  this  day,  is  it  not  ? — Yes. 

10106.  You  know  what  is  said  in  the  Statutes  at  Large  that 
the  Act  of  Henry  VIII.  that  you  are  referring  to  was  repealed 
by  the  general  words  at  the  end  of  that  section.     Would  you 
have  expected  against  the   part   of  the  text  with  the  general 
words  in  it  to  have  a  reference  to  specific  Statutes  ?     You  see 
what  I  mean  ? — Not  quite ;  I  do  not  quite  grasp  your  meaning. 

10107.  First  of  all,  you  get  the  repeal  of  certain  specific 
Statutes,  and  then  in  the  marginal  note  you  have  a  short  refer- 
ence to  those  Statutes,  do  you  not  ? — Yes. 

10108.  Then  you  get  to  the  general  words  of  repeal  which 
has  no  marginal  note  against  it  ? — Yes. 

10109.  In  the  first  place,  would  you  expect  to  find  specific 
references  to  Statutes  when  the  nature  of  the  text  is  in  itself 
a  general  repeal  ? — But  the  question  is  whether  the  nature  of 
the  text  is  a  general  repeal  here. 

10110.  That  is  another  point,  which  I  will  deal  with  sepa- 
rately, but  your  point  now  is  that  the  marginal  note  does  not 


?  E.  G.  32  H.  VIII.  BY  1  ED.  VI.  C.  12          369 

bear  out  the  statement  in  the  Statutes  at  Large,  that  this  Statute 
was  repealed  by  general  words,  and  you  say  that  because  there 
is  no  reference  to  this  particular  Act  in  the  marginal  note. 
I  point  out  to  you  that  that  being  a  general  repeal  you  could 
not  have  a  marginal  note  dealing  with  a  specific  Statute.  Is 
that  not  so  ? — But  do  you  say  that  in  no  other  case  of  these 
Statutes  is  there  a  general  repeal,  but  only  a  specific  repeal  of 
other  Statutes  to  which  the  marginal  note  applies  ? 

10111.  I  do  not  quite  follow.  We  have  in  this  section  two 
things,  the  specific  repeals  and  a  general  repeal.  I  am  quite 
with  you  in  supposing  that  the  specific  repeals  are  not  a  general 
repeal ;  of  course  not,  they  are  specific  in  the  nature  of  them, 
and  you  have  the  names  of  those  Statutes  put  in  the  margin. 
Then  you  have  a  general  repeal,  and  I  understand  your  point 
to  be  that  a  reference  to  the  particular  Statute  which  is  said 
to  have  been  repealed  by  those  general  words  is  not  in  the 
margin.  I  ask  you,  how  could  it  be  ? — May  I,  in  order  to  help 
me  to  answer  that  question,  ask  you  for  information  :  I  mean, 
whether  all  the  other  references  in  this  marginal  note  referred 
to  specific  repeals,  or  do  they  include  also  general  repeals  ? 

10112. — All  the  Acts  mentioned  are,  of  course,  specific  re- 
peals ;  by  mentioning  them  they  become  specific.  Then  you 
have  a  general  repeal,  and  I  put  it  to  you  whether  it  is  possible 
that  specific  Statutes  could  be  named  against  that  general 
repeal.  In  other  words  it  would  cease  to  be  general  if  they 
were  named  ? — I  have  not  read  all  the  Statutes  referred  to  in 
this  marginal  note,  and  therefore  I  ask  you  because  you  pro- 
bably know,  and  I  do  not,  whether  there  is  a  case  of  general 
repeal  in  any  of  them. 

10113.  But  they  are  not  generally  repealed  by  this  section 
because  they  are  specifically  repealed  ? — But  are  they  all  spe- 
cifically repealed  ? 

10114.  Yes,  they  are.     The  first  Act  is  the  5th  of  Eichard  II., 
Statute  2,  chapter  5 ;  that  is  referred  to  in  the  text  ? — Yes. 

10115.  Then  the  next  is  a  Statute  made  in  the  second  year 
of  Henry  V. ;  that  again  is  referred  to  in  the  text  ? — Yes. 

10116.  Then  the  Act  of  25  Henry  VIII.,  chapter  14 ;  that 
again  is  referred  to  in  the  text  ? — Yes. 

10117.  Then    you    get  to  an  Act   of   six  years  afterwards 
— 31   Henry  VIII.,  chapter   14 ;    that,    again,   is  referred  to 
in  the  text  ? — Yes. 

10118.  Then  you  get  to  the  Act  of  34  and  35  Henry  VIII., 
and  that  again  is  referred  to  in  the  text  ? — Yes. 

10119.  And  then  you  get  finally  the  Act  of  35  Henry  VIII., 
chapter  5 ;  that  is  referred  to  in  the  text.     And  then  you  get 
the  general  repeal  of  all  Acts  of  Parliament  concerning  doctrine 
and  matters  of  religion  ? — Yes,  I  see  your  point.     Now  do  you 

B  B 


370          ?  E.  G.  32  H.  VIII.  BY  1  ED.  VI.  C.  12 

think  that  the  marginal  note  is  sufficiently  explained  by  your 
explanation  when  it  says 

10120.  "You  must  not  ask  me  questions,  you  see.1     I  think 
the  Commission  quite  understand  your  point,  that  there  is  no 
reference  in  the  text  to  the  Statute  in  question  which  is  said  by 
the  Statutes  at  Large  to  have  been  repealed  by  this  Statute,  in 
the  marginal  note.     I  point  out  to  you  that  it  is  said  to  be  re- 
pealed by  the  general  words,  and  that  being  a  general  repeal 
you  could  not  have  a  specific  reference  to  the  particular  Statute 
in  the  margin  ;  it  would  cease  to  be  a  general  repeal  if  you 
had.     If  you  admit  that  position  I  will  go  on  to  something  else  ? 
—I  should  be  inclined  to  say,  taking  the  words  in  the  margin, 
'  All   Acts  respecting  doctrine   and   matters   of  religion  .  .  . 
repealed ;  namely '  so  and  so,  the  natural  inference  from  that 
would  be  that  if  they  meant  that  the  32nd  of   Henry  VIII. 
was  repealed  it  would  be  referred  to. 

10121.  Let   me  draw   your  attention  to  the  words  again, 
because  it  is  not  what  you  have  said.     The  words  are,  '  All 
Acts  of  Parliament  mentioning  or  in  any  wise  concerning  reli- 
gion ' ;  that  is  to  say,  that  there  is  a  string  of  specific  Acts,  and 
then  at  the  end  of  that,  '  All  and  every  other  Act  or  Acts  of 
Parliament  concerning  doctrine  and  matters  of  religion  '  ? — But 
we  are  quoting  two  different  things  then. 

10122.  That  is  the  section  of   the  Act  of  Parliament  that 
you  have   been  dealing  with  ? — I  quoted  this  morning  these 
words,  'All  Acts  respecting  doctrine  and  matters  of  religion 
repealed,  namely,'  and  then  they  put  them  in. 

10123.  Yes,  that  is  the  marginal  note.     I  was  giving  you 
the  actual  section  ? — I  say  that  the  marginal  note  there  would 
naturally  include  the  32nd  of  Henry  VIII.  if  it  meant  to  in- 
clude it. 

10124.  How   could    it    when    the  repeal   of    the  32nd   of 
Henry  VIII.  is  according  to  the  Statutes  at  Large 2  by  the  general 
words  in  it ;  and  if  it  is  by  the  general  words  how  can  it  be  by 
specific  words  ? — Then  it  is  a  question  whether  it  is  repealed. 
I  have  two  strong  legal  opinions  to  say  it  is  not  repealed. 

10125.  Then  that  is  a  question,  is  it  not,  whether  it  does 
come  within  those  words  of  general  repeal? — Yes. 

1  Why  not?  Is  not  this  an  indication  of  unconscious  bias?  I  was 
invited  by  the  Commission  to  give  any  information  which  I  might  possess 
to  elucidate  the  Ornaments  Bubric ;  but  I  found  myself  cross-examined — 
especially  by  Sir  Lewis  Dibdin,  Sir  Edward  Clarke,  Dr.  Gibson,  and  Mr. 
Drury — as  if  the  Commission  were  a  judicial  court  and  I  a  hostile  witness 
in  a  criminal  prosecution.  What  some  of  my  cross-examiners  seem  to 
have  been  anxious  to  get  was  not  information,  but  evidence  in  support  of  a 
foregone  conclusion.  The  Chairman  intervened  but  seldom,  and  always 
quite  fairly  and  courteously. 

1  Which  have  no  authority  at  all. 


?  E.  G.  32  H.  VIII.  BY  1  ED.  VI.  C.  12          371 

10126.  Then  I  do  not  think  I  need  trouble  you  any  more 
upon  that.     You  have  the  Statutes  at  Large  saying  that  it  was 
repealed  by  those  general  words,  and  there,  so  far  as  I  am  con- 
cerned, I  am  content  to  leave  it  ? — But  the  Statutes  at  Large 
have  never  had  any  real  authority  as  these  have  had. 

10127.  I  quite  agree  with  you  ;  they  have  no  formal  autho- 
rity.    I  think  we  are  agreed  now  that  the  Statutes  of  the  Eealm 
have  nothing  whatever  to  do  with  this  point ;  they  are  a  series  of 
all  Acts  of  Parliament  whether  repealed  or  not  repealed  ? — Yes, 
but  then  I  give  the  marginal  note  there. 

10128.  (Chairman.)  Do  not  go  back  to  that  again,  please. 

10129.  (Sir  Lewis  Dibdin.)  Now  on  that  point  in  one  of 
your  remarks  last  time  after  I  had  examined  you,  you  suggested 
that  the  Order  of  Communion  had  been  authorised  under  this 
Act  of  Henry  VIII.,  that  there  was  time  for  it  to  be  so  autho- 
rised before  the  repeal  of  that  Statute,  supposing  it  was  re- 
pealed.   Do  you,  on  further  reflection,  adhere  to  that  position? 
— May  I  put  it  in  this  way  :  the  32nd  Henry  VIII.,  chapter  26, 
gives  statutory  force  to  the  legislation  in  matters  of  ceremony 
and  religion  compiled  by  picked  committees  then  appointed, 
or  by  committees  appointed  by  Convocation. 

10130.  No,  it  is  by  Letters  Patent  with  the  advice  of  the 
bishops  or  some  of  them? — Yes,  or  by  His  Majesty  or  by — 
I  forget  the  words. 

10131.  It  must  be  by  Letters  Patent  with  the  advice  of  the 
bishops  or  certain  of  them  ? — Yes,  the  committee  appointed  by 
Henry  VIII.  undertook — it  was   part  of  their  functions — the 
revision  of  the  old  Service  Books,  and  it  is  on  record  that  at 
the  first  meeting  of  Convocation  under  Edward  VI.  the  Lower 
House  of  Convocation  asked  the  Upper  House  to  produce  the 
result. 

10132.  (Chairman.)  We  have  had  that  before,  to-day.1 

10133.  (Sir  Lewis  Dibdin.)  The  question  is  a  very  simple 
one  and  does  not  really  raise  any  of  this  complicated  historical 
line  that  you  are  going  upon.     It  is  whether  you  still  adhere 
to  the  position  (I  do  not  want  to  hold  you  to  it)  that  supposing 
the  Act  of  Henry  VIII.  that  you  rely  upon  was  repealed  in 
the  beginning  of  Edward  VI.'s  reign  it  was  not  repealed  until 
1  Edward  VI.,  chapter  18,  received  the  Eoyal  Assent :  whereas 
the  Order  of  Holy  Communion  was  brought  in  before  that,  or  it 
might  have  been  before  that,  and  that  therefore  although  this 
Statute  of  Henry  might  have  been  repealed  there  was  time 
for  the  Order  of  Communion  to  be  authorised  under  the  Act 
of  Henry  VIII.  before  the  Act  was  repealed.     That  is  a  per- 
fectly intelligible  position  which  you  certainly  threw  out  last 

1  I  have  given  a  full  answer  on  pp.  141-153. 

B  B  2 


372      DE.  GEE  ON  THE  INJUNCTIONS  OP  1536 

time,  and  I  wanted  to  know  whether  you  adhered  to  it  ? — I  do 
not  think  it  was  quite  that. 

10134.  Then  I  will  not  ask  you  any   questions   about   it. 
There  is  just  one  question  about   the  Order  of    Communion 
that  I  want  to  ask  you,  which  has  emerged  to-day.     I  think  you 
told  Dr.  Gibson  that  in  your  view  of  the  Injunctions  of  1536, 
that  is,  Henry  VIII.'s  Injunctions,  the  Epistle  and  Gospel  were 
to  be  said  in  English ;  is  that  so  ? — Were  authorised  to  be  said 
in  English. 

10135.  Authorised  to  be  said  in   English? — That  is  what 
I  understand. 

10136.  But  I  think  you  told  us  that  you  were  looking  at  the 
Injunctions  of    Henry  VIII.  ? — No,  I  said  I  took  that   from 
Dr.  Gee. 

10137.  You  have  not  looked  at  the  Injunctions  ? — No,  I  had 
not  time.    I  came  up  from  Yorkshire,  and  have  not  had  time. 

10138.  Will  you  take  it  from  me  that  they  did  not  have 
that  effect  ? — Yes,  if  you  say  so. 

10139.  They  authorised  the  Paternoster,  the  Articles  of  our 
Faith  and  the  Ten  Commandments  in  the  vulgar  tongue,  but 
I  cannot  find,  and  those  who  are  much  more  experienced  than 
I  am  in  these  matters  cannot  find  any  reference  to  the  Epistle 
and  Gospel,  and  I  suggest  to  you  that  it  is  a  mistake  to  say 
that  they  were  authorised  in  English  by  the  Injunctions  of 
Henry  VIII.  ? — It  is  a  mistake  on  the  part  of  Dr.  Gee  then. 

10140.  And  so  far,  of  course,  it  does  away  with  the  force 
of  one  of  your  answers  to  Dr.  Gibson  as  indicating  the  differ- 
ences  between   the  state  of   public  service   at   the   death   of 
Henry  VIII.  and  in  Edward  VI. 's  reign? — Yes. 

10141.  That   point  goes  out? — Yes.     I  said  at  once  that 
I  took  my  information  on  that  point  from  Dr.  Gee.1 

[The  Witness  withdrew.] 

1  Dr.  Gee  made  a  slip  as  to  the  year.  But  I  was  quite  right  in  saying, 
and  Dr.  Gibson  was  quite  wrong  in  denying,  that  the  Epistles  and  Gospels 
were  used  in  Divine  Service  in  English  in  the  reign  of  Henry  VIII.  See 
Chapter  III.,  where  I  have  gone  into  the  whole  question. 


APPENDIX   B. 

(See  p.  145) 

STATUTES   OF   THE   EEALM. 
Vol.  iv.  pt.  1,  pp.  18-19.     1st  Edw.  VI.  chapt.  xii. 

An  Actefor  the  Eepeale  of  certaine  Statutes  concerninge 
Treasons,  Felonyes,  dc. 

No  thinge  being  more  godlie  more  sure  more  to   be  wisshed  Principles  of 

and  desired  betwixte  a  Prynce  the  Supreame  Hed  and  Euler  ^d  oSnce 

and  the  Subgectf  whose  Govvernor  and  Hed  he  is,  then  on  the  in  the  Prince 

Prynces  pte  great  clemencye  and  indulgencye,  and  rather  to  and 

muche  forgivenes  and  remission  of  his  royall  power  and  just 

punishment,  then  exacte  severitie  and  justice  to  be  shewed,  and 

on  the  Subject^  behalfe  that  theye  shoulde  obeye  rather  for 

love  and  for  the  necessitie  and  love  of  a  Kinge  and  Prynce, 

then  for  feare  of    his  streight  and  severe  Lawes ;    yet  suche  occasional 

tymes  at  some  tyme  comethe  in  the  comonwealthe  that  it  is 

necessaire  and  expedient  for  the  repressinge  of  the  insolencye 

and  unrulynes  of  Men,  and  for  the   foreseing  and  provyding 

of  remedyes  against  rebellyon  insurrection,  or  suche  mischief^ 

as  God  sometyme  with  us  displeased  for  or  punishment  dothe 

inflicte  and  laye  uppon  us,  or  the  Devill  at  Godds  pmission  to 

assaye  the  good  and  Godf  electe  dothe  sowe  and  sett  amongc 

us  the  which  Allmightie  God  wth  his  helpe  and  mans  pollicye 

hath  allwaies  bene  content   and  pleased  to  have  stayed  that 

sharper  lawes  as  a  harder   brydle   shoulde  be  made  to  staye 

those  men  and  factf  that   might   ellC   be  occacon   cause  and 

aucthors  of  further  inconvenyence ;   The  which  thing  cawsed 

the  Prynce    of   most   famous    memorie  Kinge  Henry  theight 

father  to  or  saide  Sovereigne  Lorde  the  King,  and   other  his 

Highnes  progenito™,  with  thassent  of  the  Nobles  and  Comons 

at  divers  plementf  in  theire  severall  tymes  [holden  ']  to  make 

and  enacte  certaine  lawes  and  Statutes  which  might  seme  and 

appere  to  men  of  exterior  Eealmes  and  manny  of  the  Kingf 

1  helde. 


374 


APPENDIX   B 


and  of  their 
subsequent 
Relaxation ; 


No  Offence, 
made  Treason 
by  Statute,  shall 
be  adjudged 
such,  except 
under  St.  25 
E.  III.,  sec.  5  c.  2, 
or  this  Act. 


Mates  Subgectf  verie  streighte  sore  extreme  and  terrible, 
allthoughe  theie  were  then  when  theye  were  made  not  wth  out 
grate  consideracon  and  pollicye  moved  and  established  and 
for  the  tyme  to  thadvoydaunce  of  further  inconvenyence  verie 
expedyent  and  necessarie;  But  as  in  tempest  or  winter  one  course 
and  garment  is  convenyent,  in  cawlme  or  warme  weather  a 
more  liberall  rase  or  lighter  garment  bothe  maybe  and  ought 
to  be  followed  and  used,  so  we  have  seen  divers  streight  and 
sore  lawes,  made  in  one  plament  the  tyme  so  requiringe,  in  a 
more  cawlme  and  quiet  reigne  of  a  nother  Prynce  by  like 
aucthoritie  and  pliament  repealed  and  taken  awaie  ;  the  which 
moste  highe  clemencye  and  Eoyall  example  of  his  Mates  moste 
noble  progenito18,  The  Kingf  Highnes,  of  his  tender  and  godlie 
nature  moste  given  to  mercye  and  love  of  his  Subgectf 
willing  to  followe,  and  prceiving  the  hartie  and  syncere  love 
that  his  most  lovinge  subgectf  both  the  Lords  and  Comons 
dothe  beare  unto  his  Highnes  now  in  this  his  Majesties  tendre 
age,  willing  allso  to  gratifie  the  same  therfore,  and  myndinge 
further  to  provoke  his  saide  Subgectf  with  greate  indulgencye  and 
clemencye  shewed  on  his  Highnes  bihalfe  to  more  love  &  kyndnes 
towardes  his  Majestie  (yf  it  maye  be),  and  uppon  trust  that 
theie  will  not  abuse  the  same,  but  rather  be  encouraged 
thereby  more  faithfullie  and  with  more  diligence  (yf  it  maye 
be)  and  care  for  his  Mate  to  serve  his  Highnes  now  in  this  his 
tendre  age,  is  contented  and  pleased  that  the  severitie  of 
certaine  Lawes  here  followinge  be  mitigated  and  remitted  :  Be 
it  therefore  ordeigned  and  enacted  by  the  King  or  Soveraigne 
Lorde  with  thassent  of  the  Lordes  spuall  and  temporall  and 
of  the  Comons  in  this  present  plament  assembled  and  by 
thauctoritie  of  the  same,  that  from  hensfurthe,  none  acte  dede 
or  offense,  being  by  Acte  of  plament  or  Statute  made  Treasone 
or  petit  Treasone  by  wordes  writing  cipring  dedes  or  other- 
wise what  so  ever,  shalbe  taken  had  demed  or  adjudged  to 
be  highe  Treasone  or  petit  Treasone,  but  onlie  suche  as  be 
treasone  or  petit  Treasone  in  or  by  the  Acte  of  plament  or 
Statute  made  in  the  xxvth  yere  of  the  Eeigne  of  the  moste 
noble  Kinge  of  famous  memorie  Kinge  Edwarde  the  thirde 
touching  or  concerninge  Treasone  or  the  Declaration  of 
Treasones,  And  suche  offences  as  hereafter  shall  by  this  present 
Acte  be  expressed  and  declared  to  be  Treasone  or  petit 
Treasone,  and  none  other;  Nor  that  anny  paynes  of  deathe 
penaltie  or  forfaiture  in  anny  wise  ensue  or  be  to  anny  of  the 
offendors  for  the  doing  or  comittinge  any  Treasone  or  petit 
Treasone,  other  then  suche  as  be  in  the  saide  Estatute  made  in 
the  saide  xxvth  yere  of  the  reigne  of  the  saide  Kinge  Edward 
the  thirde,  or  by  this  present  Estatute,  ordeyned  or  provyded ; 
Anny  Acte  or  Actes  of  pliament  Statute  or  Statute  had  or 


APPENDIX  B 


375 


made  at  anny  tyme  heretofore,  or  after  the  saide  xxvth  yere  of 
the  Eeigne  of  the  saide  late  King  Edwarde  the  thirde,  or  anny 
other  declaration  or  matter  to  the  contrarie  in  anny  wise  not- 
withstanding. 

And  allso  be  it  enacted  by  thauctoritie  aforesaide,  that  all    ,     .   "• 

...  -i    T-i   j    j     j  i  •  •  •        •*•"  •A-cta  respect- 

Actes  of  plament  and  Estatutes  towchmge  mencyomnge  or  in  ing  Doctrine  and 
anny  wise  concernynge  Eeligion  or  opinyons,  That  is  to  saie  {^"n  repealed : 
aswell  the  Statute  made  in  the   [first  *]   yeare  of  the  Eeigue  namely,  5  R.  n. 
of  the  Kingf  noble  progenito1  Kinge  Eicharde  the  Second,  and  sec!  i°c.57;;2H°V' 
the  Statute  made  in  the  Seconde  yere  of  the  Eeigne  of  King  jji^vni'c'w- 
Henry  the  fifthe,  and  the  Statute  allso  made  in  the  xxvth  yere 
of  the  Eeigne  of  Kinge  Henry  theight  concerninge  punishment 
and  reformacon  of  Heretykes  &  Lolardes,  and  everie  provision 
therein  conteyned,  and  the  Statute  made  for  the  abolishment 
of    diversitif   of   opinions    in    certaine    artycles    concerninge 
Christian  Eeligion  comonlie  called  the  Sixe  Articles,  made  in  the 
plament  begonne  at  Westmestre  the  xxviijth  daie  of  Apryll  in 
the  xxx jth  yere  of  the  Eeigne  of  the  moste  noble  &  victorious 
Prynce  of  moste  famous  memorie  Kinge  Henry  theight  father 
to  our  saide  most  drad  Soveraigne  Lorde  the  Kinge  that  now 
is,  and  allso  the  Acte  of  plyament  and  Statute  made  at  the 
plament  begonne  at  Westmestre  the  xvjth  daye  of  Januarye  in 
the  xxxiijth  yere  of  the  Eeigne  of  the  saide  late  King  Henry 
theight    and    after    that    proroged  unto    the    xxijth  daye   of 
Januarye  in  the  xxxiiij  yere  of  the  Eeigne  of  the  saide  late  34, 35  H.  vm. 
King  Henry  theight  touchinge  mentioninge  or  in  anny  wise  c-  L 
concerninge  bookes  of  the  old    &    newe  Testament  in   Eng- 
lishe,  and  the  pryntinge  utteringe  selling  giving  or  delivering 
of  bookes  of  writing^  and  reteyninge  of  Englishe  bookes  of 
writing^,  and   reading  preaching    teaching  or  expounding  of 
Scripture  or  in  anny  wise  touching  mentionynge  or  concerninge 
anny  of  the  same  matters,  And  allso  one  other  Statute  made 
in  the  plament  holden  at  Westmestre  in  the  xxxvth  yere  of  the 
Eeigne  of  the  saide  late  King  Henry  thoight,  concerninge  the  35  H.  vm.  c.  5. 
qualificacon  of  the  Statute  of  Sixe  Articles,  and  all  and  everie 
Acte  or  Actf  of  plament  concerninge  the  true  doctryne  [and 2] 
matters   of    Eeligion,   and    all    and  everie    br'hinche   artycle 
sentence  and  matter  paynes  and  forfaitures  conteyned  men- 
tioned or  in  anny  wise  declared  in  anny  of  the  same  Actf  of 
pliament  or  Estatutes,  shall  fromhensfurthe  be  repealed  and 
utterlie  voyde  and  of  none  effects. 

1  fyrst,  O ;    fifth,  some  modern  printed  copies.      The  Act  5  Ric.  II. 
sec.  2  c.  5  was  doubtless  intended  to  be  referred  to  :  see  Stat.  25  Hen.  VIII. 
c.  14  §  2. 

2  or,  O. 


INDEX 


ABEL,  243 

Ablutions,  160,  274 

'  Abstract  of  Certain  Acts  of  Par- 
liament, of  Certain  of  Her 
Majesty's  Injunctions,  of  Cer- 
tain Canons,  £c.,'  227 

Access,  Prayer  of  Humble,  24 

Accession  of  Queen  Elizabeth,  1, 
60,  65,  67,  69,  71,  230,  240,  316 

Act,  Abolishing  Images  (3  &  4 
Edw.  VI.),  90 

Act  of  Attainder  of  Duke  of  Nor- 
folk, 341 

Act  for  Communion  in  Both  Kinds, 
131,  132,  133,  134,  276,  288, 
327,  330,  355 

Act,  Education  (1870),  ciii 

Act,  Education  (1902),  civ 

Act,  General  Pardon  (3  Edw.  VI.), 
126, 127, 128,  308,  309, 310, 333, 
342,  343 

Act,  Mary's  Bepealing,  89 

Act  for  Ordering  Ecclesiastical 
Ministers  (3  &  4  Edw.  VI.),  90 

Act,  Proclamations,  141,  155 

Act,  Real  Property  Limitation, 
301 

Act  for  Restraint  of  Appeals,  xxxix, 
155 

Act,  Statute  Law  Revision  (1863), 
284 

Act  of  Supremacy,  142,  155,  188, 
290 

Act,  Supreme  Court  of  Judicature, 
xviii 

Act  of  Uniformity,  Caroline,  200, 
203,  307 

Act  of  Uniformity,  Elizabethan, 
xiii,  1,  16,  65,  74,  86,  107,  111, 
156, 157, 159, 176, 185, 192, 193, 
196, 197, 199,  202,  203,  205, 209, 


211,  219,  223,  225,  226,  259, 
263,  264,  265, 266,  288,  291, 293, 
294,  320,  321, 322, 323, 347, 350, 
353,  354,  359 

ACT  OF  UNIFORMITY,  FIRST,  24, 
74,  78,  79,  80,  81,  82,  84,  86,  87, 
90,  111,  112,  114,  115,  122, 123, 
125,  126, 127, 128, 156, 157, 185, 
187, 188, 189,  286,  292, 299,  300, 
303,  304, 306,  307,  308,  309,  310, 
320,  322,  351,  352,  356 

Date  of,  75,  84,  86,  89,  91, 
111,  114,115,121,122,123, 
127,  128, 129, 294,  300,  301, 
302, 306,  307,  308,  310, 311, 
318, 319,  320, 333,  335,  336, 
341,  342,  343,  344 

Act  of  Uniformity,  Irish,  99,  101 

Act  of  Uniformity,  Latin,  16,  96, 
97,  98,  102,  104,  105,  107,  108, 
324,  349 

Act  of  Uniformity,  Second,  xxx, 
59,  81,  86,  87,  89,  90,  107,  119, 
168,  292,  300,  303,  304 

Act,  see  '  Statute  ' :  '  Uniformity  ' 

Acts  Cited  from  First  Year  of 
Session,  297,  298,  301 

Acts  Date  from  First  Day  of  Ses- 
sion, 120,  121, 297, 301, 307, 311 

Acts  in  Form  of  Petition,  116, 118, 
123.  124,  304,  305, 308,  309,  310 

Acts,  '  Making  '  and  '  Passing  '  of, 
88,  290,  295,  298,  300 

Additions  not  Modifications 
authorised  by  Elizabethan  Act, 
265 

Administration,  Words  of,  24, 104 

'  Admonitions  '  (1559),  175 

'  Admonitions  '  =  '  Advertise- 
ments,' 206,  218,  220 

Adoration,  Eucharistic,  161,  274 


378 


INDEX 


Advent,  Collect  next  before,  104 

'  ADVERTISEMENTS,'  The,  xxxv,  73, 
93,  192,  193,  196,  199,  200,  201, 
202,  203,  206, 207, 209, 210,  213, 
214,  215, 216, 217,  218,  219,  220, 
221,  222, 223, 224, 225, 226,  228, 
239,  243,  324,  336,  362 

No  Statutory  Force,  203,  220, 
222 

ALB,  103,  160,  184,  190,  192,  197, 
198,  199,  202,  239 
and  Surplice,  197,  198 

Aldenham  (Lord),  in  possession 
First  Impression  of  Elizabethan 
Prayer  Book,  350 

Aleis,  349 

1  Almane  '  ( =  Germany),  68 

ALTAR,  186,  239,  326,  353,  355, 362 
in  Chapel  Eoyal,  61,  63,  186, 

326 

Lights  on,  63,  154,  160,  161, 
183,  184, 186, 188, 211,  243, 
244,  247,  273,  274,  326,  355 

Altar  cloths,  160,  186,  266,  326, 
353 

Altarwise,  Table,  161,  274 

Ambrose,  St.,  253 

Ames,  99,  101 

Amice,  198 

Anabaptists,  166 

Anarchists  in  Beligion,  58,  70, 
256 

Andrews,  Bp.,  186,  363 
Chapel  of,  186,  187 

Angerville,  Bp.,  xxxiii 

Anglican  Church  History,  328 

Anglican  Divines  confer  with  Ger- 
mans, 8,  13 

Annates,  49,  52,  153 

Antiphoners,  44 

Antiquity,  Appeal  to  Catholic,  241 

1  Apologia,'  Newman's,  172 

Appeals,  Act  for  Eestraint  of, 
xxxix,  155 

Appeals  to  Delegates,  xxxix,  Ivii, 
154 

Appeals  to  Rome,  53 

'  Ara  Cffili,'  55 

Arches,  Court  of,  75,  77,  84,  111, 
194,  195 

Armenian  Ceremonial,  cvii 

Articles,  Green  on  the  Thirty- 
nine,  313 


Articles  on  Beligion  (1536),  54 
Articles,  The  Six,  3,  147, 177,  178, 

359 

Articles,  The  Ten,  5,  313 
Article  XXXIV.,  256,  257 
Ashes  on  Ash  Wednesday,  348 
Assent  to  First  Uniformity  Act,  75, 
77,  79,  80,  81,  82,  84,  85,87,  90, 
91,  111,  112,  113,  115,  125,  127, 
128, 129,  294,  301,  303,  306,  309, 
310,  318,  319,  332, 333,  334,  335, 
336,  341,  342,  343 
ASSENT  (ROYAL)  TO  ACTS,  89,  91, 
112,  113, 115, 117, 118,  295,  298, 
299,  300, 301,  302,  304,  305,  306, 
309,  325,  326,  342,  344 
Evidence  of,  118,  305,  306 
Put  an  End  to  the  Session, 

Ixii,  112,  113,  332 
see  '  Royal  Assent ' 
Athanasian  Creed,  Ixv,  Ixvi 
Atonement,  Doctrine  of  the,  xxvi 
Aucher  (Sir  Anthony),  xxxii 
'  Auckland  Correspondence,'  xxxv 
Audley,  Lord  Chancellor,  xxxiv 
Augsburg  Confession,  The,  2, 3, 5, 

6,  7,  8,  13,  66,  261,  312,  313 
AUGUSTINE,  ST.,  250,  253,  347 
on  Ceremonies,  347 
ad  Januarium,  248 
Augustinian Confession, see  'Augs- 
burg Confession ' 
Austin  Friars  Church,  164 
Authorised    by    Parliament,    87, 

276,  289,  290,  293 
Authorities,  Competent,  289 
'  Authority  of  Parliament,'  87,  91, 
93,  95,  97,  115,  129,  130,  131, 
140,  141, 143, 159, 184, 185, 186, 
188,  276,  287, 289,  290,  291, 292, 
293,  294,  295, 296, 297, 299, 301, 
303,  304, 317,  318, 323, 324,  326, 
330,  331, 334, 335,  344,  351,  353, 
354,  356,  357,  364 
Ave  in  English,  18 
A  verbis  legis  non  est  receden- 
dum,  201 


BACON,  Lord  Keeper,  238, 365, 366 

Baddeley,  Mr.,  Ixxviii 

Balliol  College  Library  destroyed, 


INDEX 


379 


Bamberg,  Epistle  and  Gospel  read 

in  Vernacular  at,  43 
'  Bambino,  II  Santissimo,'  55 
Baptism,  Lay,  194 
Baptismal    Regeneration,    xxiii, 

xxiv 

Basil  (St.),  Liturgy  of,  250 
Basle,  Council  of,  51 
Baxter,  Richard,  94,  356,  357 
Beach,  Sir  Michael  Hicks.     See 

1  St.  Aldwyn,  Lord  ' 
Beads,  Edwardian  Injunction  for 

Bidding  of,  179 
Bedford,  Earl  of,  236,  254 
Bell    Tolled    for   Divine    Office, 

30 
Benedict  XIII.  and  French.  King, 

51 

Bennett,  Mr.,  xxv,  xxvi,  xxviii 
Berwick-on-Tweed,  68,  234 
Bessarion,  Cardinal,  252 
Bias,  Unconscious,  xv,  xxi,  xxii 
Bible,  English,  42,  44,  358 
Biblical  Criticism,  ci 
BicJcersteth  (Bp.  of  Eipon),  xc 
Bidding    of    Beads,    Edwardian 

Injunction  for,  179 
Bil,  William,  209,  230 
Bishop,  Mr.,  38,  41 
BISHOPS  :      Abuse     Tractarians, 

Ixx 

Consecration  Oaths  of,  50 
and  Curates,  xcii 
and  Elizabeth,  60,  62,  206, 
207,    208,  232,   234,    241, 
243,  244,  245,  362 
Elizabethan,  206,  208 
Pastoral  in  1875,  Ixxxviii 
Privy  Council,  Letter  to,  135, 

139,  278,  280,  281 
Black  Gown,  Ixxxvii,  cvi 
'  Black  Rubric,'  65 
Blomfield,  Bp.,  Ixxii,  Ixxxiii 
Blunt,  Eev.  Henry,  xcix 
Boleyn,  Anne,  xxxiv 
Bonham's  Case,  200 
BONNER,  Bp.,  22,  43,  142 

his  Register,  118 
Book,  Moving  Altar,  161,  274 
Books  upon  Altar,  186,  247 
Books    of    '  Order  of  the    Com- 
munion,'  136,   137,    277,   278, 

281 


Bossuet,  48 

Bovill,  L.  C.  J.,  lii 

Bowings,  161,  274 

Boxall,  Dean,  254,  261,  262,  263 

Brazen  Serpent  Destroyed,  248 

Bread,  Elizabethan  Injunction  for 

Communion,  2,  205,  362 
Breathing  on  Bread  and  Cup,  161, 

274 
BREVIARY,  71 

for  Laity,  29,  34 
Primer  in  place  of,  33 
Quignoris,  41 
Sarum,  42,  43 
Brewer,  Dr.,  173,  272 
Bright,  Dr.,  78 
Broad  Church  Party,  c 
Brougham,   Lord,    xxxiv,   xlviii, 

liii 

Brownrigg,  Dr.,  92 
Bucer,  xxx,  59,  160,  161,  255,  274, 

275,  276 

Bulgaria,  Ceremonial  in,  cvii 
Bullinger,  8,  58,  162,   163,    165, 

207,  224 

Bullinghani,  Bp.,  222 
Burgess,  Dr.,  92 
Burke  quoted,  xxxvi,  xliii 
Burleigh,  see  '  CECIL  ' 
'  Burleigh  and  his  Times,'  69 
'  Burleigh  Papers,'  68,  102 
Burnet,  Bp.,  230 
Burning  Statues  and  Pictures,  61, 

244 
Byssus,  198 


CATRNS,    Lord,    xli,    xliii,    xlvii, 

xlix 

Calais,  69,  236 
Calamy,  Dr.,  92 
Calendar  of  Bp.  Hilsey's  Primer, 

18 

Calvin,  xxx,  xxxii,  58,  186,  255 
Calvinism,  66 
Camden,  230 
CANDLES : 

at  Candlemas,  348 
in  Chapel  Royal,  61,  63,  186 
at  Easter,  348 
Candlesticks,  266 
Canon  of  the    Mass     made    by 

Scholasticus,  252 


380 


INDEX 


CANONS  :  see  '  Constitutions  ' 
Canon,  xxx,  188 
Canon,  xxxvi,  xxxvii 
Canon  of  Preachers    (1571), 

xxxvii 

of  1603,  xxxvii,  192,  195 
Pre-Reformation,76, 184, 199 
Statutory    Force,    287,   288, 

318,  330,  336 
'  Canons,'  by  Johnson,  198 
Canterbury,  Abp.  of,  xv,  cvi,  cix, 

282,  263 

Cap,  Priests',  208 
'  Capa  Choralis,'  190 
'  Capa  Rubra  Serica,'  197 
Cardwell,  xxix,  20,  138,  158 
Caroline  Ornaments  Rubric  varies 

from  Elizabethan,  329 
Carte,  208 
Cary,  208 

Catechism  of  1552-53,  46 
Cathedrals,   Ixiii,    xc,    186,    187, 

196,  210,  326,  337,  364 
Catholic  Faith,   Elizabeth's   bent 

to,  2,  66,  241,  270,  313 
Catholics,  Number  of  (1559),  71, 

204,  272 

CECIL,  7,  68,  69,  71,  100,  102, 105, 
106,  107,  108,  169,  186,  187, 
207,  213,  217,  226,  229,  231, 
236,  237,  238,  239,  246,  247, 
254,  255,  256,  258,  261,  262, 
265,  314,  315,  361,  366  ;  Letter 
from  Parker  to,  1,  107,  217.  See 
1  Burleigh ' 

'  Censura  '  of  Bucer,  160 
CEREMONIAL.     Augsburg  Confes- 
sion on,  6,  9 
Authorised,  72,  73 
of  First   Prayer  Book,  110, 

160,  161 
of   Latin   Service  continued 

in  English  Service,  170 
of  Mass,  9,  14,  181,  189,  325, 

345,  346,  348 

of  2  Edw.  VI.,  71,  72,  74,  91. 
109,  139, 181, 189,211,276, 
361 

CEREMONIES,  65,  70,  139, 260, 273, 
345,  346,  348 

Excessive  (complained  of  in 

Prayer  Book),  347 
not  in  First  Prayer  Book,  160 


CEREMONIES  : 

Guest  on,  248 

Injunction     concerning     ob- 
serving and  abusing,  179 
Power  to  ordain  further,   1, 
65,  106,  107,  205,  209,  219, 
323 
Prayer    Book,    Chapter    on, 

347,  348 

Chalice,  160,  186,  266,  326,  337 
Champion's  Challenge,  The,  63, 64 
CHANCELS,  210 

As  in  times  past,  103 
Chancery,  King  in,  Ivii 
CHANTING  PSALMS,  xciii 

at  Shoreditch,  Times  on,lxxxi 
Chantries    at    Death    of    Henry 

VIII.,  16,  177,  181,  182,  359 
Chapel,  Cecil's,  186,  187 
Chapel  Royal,  Elizabeth's,  61,  63, 

186,  187,  236,  244,  274,  326 
Chapels  of  Bishops,  186,  187,  326 
Chapter  on  Ceremonies  in  Prayer 

Book,  347,  348 
CHAPTERS,  Cathedral,  xc,  53 

Lawless,  xci 

Charles  V.,  Requiem  for,  340 
CHASUBLE,  Ixiii,  Ixxxvii,  cvi,  93, 
192,  197, 199,  202,  337,  338,  339 
with  Surplice,  197,  198,  199, 

202 

see  '  Vestment ' 
Cheke,  Sir  John,  59 
Choir,  see  '  Quire ' 
Chrisom,  160,  162 
'  Christendom,  Common  Law  of,' 

xxxvi,  xxxix,  Ixi,  195,  197 
Christian     Creed    and    Working 

Classes,  xcv 
Chrysostom,  St.  John,  250,  251, 

252 
'  Church  of  our  Fathers  '  (BocK), 

198 

Churchwardens,  121, 306, 307, 310 
Circular    Letter    of     Council    to 
Bishops  for  Communion  in  Both 
Kinds,  135,  365 
CITATION  OF  ACTS,  322 

from  first  year   of    Session, 

297,  298,  301 
Clarendon,  Lord,  xlvi 
ClarJte,  Sir  Edward,  xiv,  xxxix, 
Ixi,  Ixii,  113,  114,  118,  127,  135, 


INDEX 


381 


143,  148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 
154,  275,  279,  284,  285, 295,  322, 
328,  333,  334,  339,  370 
CLAY,  97,  98,  99,  101 

'  Liturgical  Services,  &c.,   of 

Elizabeth,'  98 

Clergy    take    Initiative     against 
Papal  Jurisdiction,  49,  52,  230 
Cobham,  Bp.,  xxxiii 
Cockfighting      in      Church      on 

Sunday,  362 
'  Cceli  Ara,'  55 
1  Cceli  Scala,'  55 
Coke,  Lord,  xliv,  lix,  196,  201, 272, 

341 

Coleridge,  Lord,  xlii,  Hi 
Collect  next  before  Advent,  104 
COLLECTS : 

in  English  (1540),  19 
of  Henry  VIII.,  19,  179 
proposed  expansion  of,  Ixviii 
in     Time     of    Dearth     and 

Famine,  104 

Colleges,  Power  to  Visit,  181 
Collegiate    Churches,    196,    210, 

326 

Collier,  '  Ecclesiastical  History,' 
xxxii,  119,  123,  209,  221,  231, 
241 

'  Colobium,'  198 
Commandments   in   English,  60, 

358,  372 

Commencement  of  Statutes,  120, 
121,  122,  297, 301,  302, 306, 307, 
311 

Commission     on     Ecclesiastical 

Discipline,    xiii,    1,   Ivi,    Ixxiv, 

xci,   ci,   cvi,  cix,  2,  48,  56,  81, 

86,  96,  97,  114,  130,  177,  306 

Commission,  Eevision  (1689),  Ixiv 

Commission  for  Royal  Assent,  81, 

111 
COMMISSIONERS,  Statutory,  1 

see  '  Committee ' 

COMMITTEE  (Commons)  on  Warren 
Hastings,  Report  of,  xliii 

(Lords)  in  1640-41 ;  92,  94, 

95,  226,  228,  356,  357 
for  Reformation  and  Revi- 
sion, 44,  47,  143,  144,  145, 
229, 235,  238,  257, 259,  261, 
266,  314, 331,  340,  343, 359, 
371 


COMMITTEE  : 

for  Second  Prayer  Book,  157, 

320 

see  '  Convocation  Committee ' 
Committees,  Statutory,  282,  283, 

286,  359,  371 
'  Common  Law  of  Christendom,' 

xxxvi,  xxxix,  Ixi,  195,  197 
Common  Law  and  Ecclesiastical 

Law,  xxxvi 
Common     Prayer     founded     on 

Primer,  35 
Commonwealth,  The,  Ixiv,  70, 112, 

338,  361 

Communion  in  Both  Kinds,  9,  40, 

131,  133,  135,  181, 236,  279, 282 

Communion  changed  from  Mass, 

11,  12,  40 
Communion    in    form   of    Mass, 

Hooper  on,  162 
Communion  (Holy)  not  celebrated 

even  once  a  year,  362 
'  COMMUNION,  ORDER  OF  THE,'  13, 
15,  23,  39,  40,  41,  47,  66,  130, 
131,  132,  134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 
143, 146, 158, 159, 179, 181,  188, 
273, 274, 276, 277, 278,  279,  280, 
281,  283, 286, 288,  289,  311, 323, 
324, 325,  326,  327, 328,  330,  331, 
346,  348, 352,  353, 354, 355,  364, 
365,  371,  372 

Authorised  by  Parliament, 
138,  139, 143, 146, 158, 159, 
188,273,274,276,277,278, 
279,  280, 281,  282, 283, 286, 
287,  288,  289, 326,  327,  328, 
330, 334,  351,  355,  356,  364, 
371 

Compared  with  present  Com- 
munion Office,  23 
Communion,   Rarity  of  Celebra- 
tion leads  to  disuse  of  Vest- 
ments, Ixiv 
Communion  Service  in  two  parts, 

Guest  on,  250 
COMMUNION  TABLE,  184,  186,  326, 

355,  see  '  Altar ' 
'  Competent  Authorities,'  289 
Compline  in  English,  331,  358 
Conference  with  Germans,  8,  13 
CONFESSION,  7,  9 
Doctrine  of  5,  6 
The  General,  24 


382 


INDEX 


Confession      of    Augsburg,     see 

'  Augsburg ' 
Conquest     of    England,    France 

prepares,  68 

Consecration  Oaths  of  Bishops,  50 
CONSECRATION  PRAYER,  Guest  on, 
251,  260,  261,  262 

omitted  Second  Book, 
according  to  Privy  Council, 
xxix 

'  Considerations  sur  la  France,'  ex 
Constantine  the  Great,  208 
Constitution      unsettled      temp. 

Edward  VI,  142 

CONSTITUTIONS  of  Parker,  Abp., 
215 

Provincial,     184,    287,     330, 
351, 354 :  see  '  Canons,  Pre- 
Reformation ' 
of  Reynolds,  Abp.,  199 
Contents  of  Primer  (1545),  35 
CONVOCATION,  58,  146,  359 
of  1531,  48 
of  1534,  42,  53 
of  1541,  43 

of  1547,  38,  40,  47,  359 
of  1553,  46 
and  '  Annates,'  48 
and  Court  of  Rome,  49 
drafts  Act  for  Communion  in 

Both  Kinds,  327 
Drafts  of  First  Prayer  Book, 

39 

of  York,  53 

CONVOCATION  COMMITTEE  of  1542, 
44 

of  1548,  138 

for     'Order     of     the     Com- 
munion,' 138, 145,  286,  371 
Cope,  Ixii,  Ixiii,  xc,  93,  103,  160, 
184,   190,    192,   196,  197,   198, 
199,  202,  337,  355,  364 
Coptic  Ceremonial,  cvii 
'  Corinthians,  Epistle  to,'  249 
Coronation  of  Elizabeth,  61,  314 
Corporal  Presence,  64,  230 
Corporas,  160,  186,  326 
'  Corpus  Christi,'  20 
Corpus     Christi     College,    Cam- 
bridge, 141 

COSIN,  Bp.,  Ixiii,  183,  189,  190, 
247,  326,  329,  330,  334,  338, 
351,  352,  353,  354,  363 


COSIN,  Bp. : 

on  Ornaments  Rubric,  183, 
185,  186,  187,  188,  189, 
326,  329,  334,  338,  351, 
352,  353,  354 

'  Cotton  MS.,'  54 

COUNCIL  put  pressure  on  Eliza- 
beth, 61  ;  see  '  Order  in 
Council ' 

Councils,  (Ecumenical,  171,  270 

Courtenay,  Rev.  Mr.,  Ixxv 

Cox,  Bp.,  222,  230,  240,  244, 
245 

CRANMER,  Abp.,  xxx,  11,  12,  13, 
17,  18,  22,  25,  38,  39,  40,  41, 
43,  58,  59,  66,  75,  78,  135,  141, 
161,  164,  165,  168,  169,  255, 
275,  327,  331,  348,  365 

Edward  VPs  threat  to,  59 
Henry  VIII  to,  27 
letter' of  1544,  25 

Creed,  Clergy  deny  fundamental 
Articles  of,  xci 

Creed  only  to  be  said  by  Commu- 
nicants, 250 

Creeping  to  the  Cross,  348 

Cromwell,  Thomas,  20,  39 

Crosier  Staff,  184 

Cross,  Sign  of  the,  xxxvii,  161, 
274 

CROSSES,  63,  64,  160,  243,  249, 
266 

Guest  on,  249 

Cross-examination  of  Author,  xiii, 
xv,  16,  28,  48,  81,  86,  113,  115, 
119,  130,  177,  178,  229,  370 

Crucifixes,  8,  61,  62,  63,  64,  160, 
243,  246,  261,  361,  362 

Cuadra,  Alvaro  de  la,  270,  271, 
272,  311,  312 

'  Cuique  in  sua,  arte  credendum,' 
Ix 

Curates  and  Bishops,  xciii 

Cutler,  Professor,  lii 


DAILY  Service  not  Enforced,  338, 
364 

Dalmatic,  198 

Date  of  Commencement  of  Sta- 
tutes, see  '  Commencement  of 
Statutes ' 

Deacon  at  Mass,  243 


INDEX 


383 


DEAD,  PRAYERS  FOR,  55,  162,  251, 
260 

Guest  on,  251,  260 

Deadly  Sin,  9 

Deane,  Dr.,  xlii,  Hi 

Dearth,  Collect  in  Time  of,  104 

Decay  of  Religion,  363 

Decisions  of  Judges  on  Ornaments 
Rubric,  317 

'Declaration  on  Kneeling,  The,' 
65,  169 

Definite  Rule  for  Ornaments,  Ixii, 
328,  329 

'  De  Heretico  Comburendo  '  Writ, 
178 

Delane,  Mr.,  Ixxxvii 

DELEGATES,  Appeals  to,  xxxix, 
Ivii,  154 

Composition  of  Court,  Iviii 

Democracy,  Ixxxix,  xcix 

Denmark,  67 

'Device,  The,'  7,  231,  237,  239, 
258 

Devonshire,  Insurrection  in,  72, 
365 

Diary  of  Edward  VI.,  see  'Ed- 
ward VI.,  Journal ' 

Dibdin,  99 

Dibdin,  Sir  Lewis,  xiv,  xxxix,  2, 
3,  4,  5,  15,  23,  79,  81, 82,  85,  86, 
87,  112,  115,  116, 119,  120,  121, 
123,  124,  125,  127,  128,  130, 
131,  134,  135,  143,  148,  149, 
150,  151,  152,  153,  154,  155, 
156,  157,  184,  229,  271,  272, 
274,  275,  276,  278,  279,  280, 
282,  283,  284,  285,  287,  288, 
289,  290,  291,  293,  295,  296, 
300,  304,  307,  309,  315,  316, 
317,  318,  319,  323,  325,  326, 
327,  330,  333,  334,  344,  355, 
358,  364,  366,  370,  371 

Dickinson,  Mr.,  18 

Differences  between  Second  Book 
and  that  of  Elizabeth,  Parser's 
Note  of,  103,  106,  107,  108 

Diocesan  Uses,  ciii 

Dionysius  the  Areopagite,  250 

DISESTABLISHMENT,  Ixviii,  ci 

might     be     precipitated    by 
Ritualist  Laity,  Ixxxix,  xcii 

'  Disestablishment  and  Disendow- 
ment '  (Freeman),  173 


DISPENSATIONS,  Papal,  53 

see    Indulgences,'  '  Pardons  ' 
Disruption,  ci 
Dissenters,  213,  221 
Dissenting   Preachers,    Seminary 

Priests  as,  364 
'  Distresses  of  the  Commonwealth, 

The,'  236,  237,  239,  255 
Disuser,  Ixii,  Ixiii,  336,  337,  338, 

339,  361,  363,  364 
'  Divine  Office,  The,'  29 
'  Divine  Service,  The,'  38 
Divines,   Committee    of,   44,   47, 

143,    144,    145,   229,   230,  235, 

238,   257,   259,   261,  266,   282, 

283,  314,  331,  340,  343 
Dixon,  Canon,  17,  18,  33,  35,  37, 

38,  61,  137,  158,  274,  275,  327 
Doctors'  Commons,  Ixi 
Dodd's   'Church    History,'    146, 

231 
Dodson,  Sir  John,  75,  78,  79,  82, 

141 
Drury,  Rev.   T.  W.,  3,  15,  324, 

345,  357,  370 
Dryander,  163 

Dudley,  see  '  Leicester,  Earl  of  ' 
Durandus,  198,  250 
Durham,  Edwardian  Prayer  Books 

not  used  in  diocese,  164,  169 
Dutch  Church  in  London,  8,  164 


EASTER  DAY  Homily,  23 

Ecclesiastical  Commission,  246, 
263,  264 

Ecclesiastical  Discipline  Commis- 
sion, xiii,  1,  Ivi,  Ixxiv,  xci,  ci, 
cvi,  cix,  2,  48,  56,  81,  86,  96, 
97,  114,  130,  177,  306 

'  Ecclesiastical  Judgments  of  the 
Privy  Council,'  Ivii 

Ecclesiastical  Law  and  Common 
Law,  xxxvi 

Ecclesiastical  Lawyers,  Ix,  Ixi 

Ecclesiastical  Matters,  Judges  on, 
819 

Edrick's  Case,  200 

EDUCATION,  cii,  ciii 
Free,  civ 

Education  Act,  1870,  ciii 

Education  Act,  1902,  civ 

Education  Bill,  The,  ciii 


384 


INDEX 


EDWAKD  VI.,  8, 12,  15,  56,  58,  72, 
74,  112,  175,  177, 179,  181,  182, 
239,  273,  341 

Accession  of — date,  75,  275 
Constitution  unsettled  under, 

142 
and  Elizabeth,   58,  64,  103, 

311,  358,  359 
English  Liturgy  of,  70 
fatal  illness,  169,  204 
fond  of  Pageantry,  112 
Journal  of,  75,  78,  79,  80,  81, 
82,  83,  90,  112,  300,  333, 
343 

Libraries     spoiled    and     de- 
stroyed under,  xxxii 
Proclamation   against   Inno- 
vations, 139,  179 
Proclamation   for   'Order   of 
the  Communion,'  131, 132, 
135,  138 
Reformation  did  not    begin 

with,  48 

Repealing    Statute    of,    146, 
284, 285,  286,  368,  369,  370, 
373  (Appendix  B) 
and  Swiss  Reformers,  xxxii 
Threat  to  Cranmer,  59 
'Edward  VI.   and  the  Book   of 
Common  Prayer,'  by  Gasquet 
and  Bishop,  41 
'  Edward  VI.,  Life  and  Reign  of,' 

137,  334 

Elasticity,  Policy  of,  ci,  cvi 
Election  Judges,  xvii 
ELEVATION,  161,  179,  274,  340 
forbidden  in  1548,  139,  179, 

325,  340 
forbidden    in    First    Prayer 

Book,  340 
omitted    by    Elizabeth,    61, 

314 

Eliberis,  Council  of,  249 
ELIZABETH 

and  Augsburg  Confession,  2, 

66,  312 

and  Bishops,  60,  62, 206,  207, 
208,  232,  234,  241,  243, 
244,  245,  362 

bent  to  Catholic  Religion,  2, 
66,  174,  204,  241,  270,  313, 
314,  360 
changes  under,  12,  192 


ELIZABETH  : 

Chapel   Royal,   61,   63,    186, 

236,  244,  274,  326 
Coronation,  61,  314 
and  Council,  61 
omits  Elevation,  61,  314 
and  Edward  VI.,  see  under 

'  Edward  VI.' 
excommunicated  by  Pope,  65, 

272 

and  Henry  VIII.,  2,  3,  4,  5, 
55,  57,  65,  66,  70,  177,  230, 
231,  238, 258,  273,  311, 312, 
313,  340,  358,  359,  360 
Intentions  of,  1,  2,  4,  8,  13, 
57,  60,  63,  65,  66,  67,  70, 
173,  175, 178, 204,  213,  230, 
231,  238,  240,  241,  245,  258, 
270,  272, 311, 312,  313,  314, 
316,  324,  336,  340,  359 
and  Mass,  2,  3,  61,  172,  274, 

313 

and  Political  Necessities,  2, 62, 

67,  204,  220,  232,  272,  340 

Religious  Convictions  of,  1, 2, 

4,  63,  66,  67,  172,  174,  175, 

230,  312,  313,  314,  359,  360 

and  Spanish  Ambassador,  2, 

3,  4,  8,  56,  60,  61,  62,  66, 

176,  177, 178,  204, 231,  238, 

270,  271,  311,  340,  358 

views  of   Sacrament  of  the 

Altar,  230 

and  unlicensed  preaching,  60 

Elizabethan  Prayer   Book,    192, 

194,   229,   230,    235,   238,  254, 

255,  256,   257,   259,   260,   263, 

273 

1  Elizabethan  Prayer  Book,  The,' 
by  Dr.  Gee,  128,  139,  229,  265, 
323,  357,  358 
Emperor,  The,  13 
Encyclical  of  Privy  Council,  139, 

278,  280,  281 
English  Bible,  42,  44,  358 
English  Collects  in  1540,  19 
English  Lessons,  15,  29,  274,  275 
English    Services    under   Henry 
VIIL,  15,  17,  24,  25,  27,  28,  37, 
177,  273,  274,  275 
'ETn'tfA^crts,  262 

Epiphanius,   St.,    destroys    Pic- 
ture, 248,  249 


INDEX 


385 


EPISTLE  in  English,  15,  18,  19, 
23,  27,  43,  61,  274,  275,  345, 
357,  372 

place  to  read,  160 
EPISTLES  AND  GOSPELS 

as  now  used  compiled  by  Bp. 

Hilsey,  19 

Redman's  Edition  of,  19 
Erskine,  Mr.  Justice,  195 
Escott,  Mastin  v.,  xxxiv,  194 
EUCHARIST,  Doctrine  of,  5 

God  in,  2,  3,  313 

EUCHARISTIC  VESTMENTS,  cvii,  93, 
200,  202,  211,  218,  239 

see  '  Chasuble ' :  'Vestments  ' 
Evangelicals,  c 
Evensong,  15,  24,  36,   122,   179, 

273,  274 

EXAMINATION  OF  AUTHOR,  269 
see    '  Cross-Examination    of 

Author ' 
Exchequer,   Chamber,  Court    of, 

xlv 

EXCOMMUNICATION  of  Elizabeth, 
65,  272 

Papal,  53,  65,  272 
Exeter  College  Library  destroyed, 

xxxii 

Exeter  Riots,  Ixxv,  Ixxvii 
Exeter  Synod  on  Divine  Office,  30 
Exhortation    to    Communicants, 
24,327 


FAGIUX,  PAUL,  161 

Faith,  Justification  by,  9 

Falling  from  Grace,  9 

Famine,  Collect  in  time  of,  105 

Featley,  Dr.,  92 

Feria,  Count  de,  2,  3,  4,  8,  56,  60, 
61,  66,  71,  176,  177,  178,  204, 
231,  238,  262,  271,  272,  311, 
312,  340,  358 

FIRST  PRAYER  BOOK,  xxx,  xxxi, 
1,  13,  24,  39,  41,  42,  58,  66,  72, 
75,  76,  77,  84,  85,  109, 110,  111, 
119,  121,  129,  130,  131,  159, 
160,  161,  163,  164,  170,  184, 
185,  188,  189,  190,  191,  192, 
194,  202,  218,  219,  240,  246, 
247,  251,  257,  259,  260,  261, 
273,  274,  275,  276,  287,  289, 
306,  310,  311,  312,  314,  315, 


FIRST  PRAYER  BOOK  : 

316,  317,   318,  323,  325,   340, 
347,  352,  353,  354,  355,  361 
no  Ceremonial  Change,  110, 

159,  160,  170 

not  Directory,  160,  324,  328 
Draft  of,  39,  41,  47,  66 
Ornaments  of,  129, 160,  188, 

324 

Result  of  long  process,  42 
and  Second  compared,  xxviii, 

xxxiv,  230,  238,  261 
First  Year  of  Edward  VI.,  188 
'  First  and  Second  Year,'  156,  157, 
158,   159,   263,  290,   320,  321, 
322,  323,  325,  355,  364 
'  First  and  Second  of  Philip  and 

Mary,'  290 

Flamank  v.  Simpson,  154 
Flanders,  67 

Flora's  Latin  Prayer  Book,  101 
'  Folkestone  Ritual    Case,'   The, 

200 

Font,  184,  326,  353 
Font  for  Holy  Water,  93 
Foreigners  under  Edward  VI.,  58 
Fortescue,  Lord,  Ixxxi,  Ixxxii 
Foxe,  137,  158,  282,  327,  356 
'  Framers  of  Statutes,'  see '  Inten- 
tions,' 'Elizabeth,  Intentions  of 
FRANCE,  68,69,  232,  234,  236,  272 
King  of,  13,  51,  232,  236 
prepares  Conquest  of  Eng- 
land, 68 

Free  Education,  civ 
Freeman,  Archdeacon,  42 
Freeman,  E.  A.,  172 
Free-will,  9 

Frontals  for  Altar,  186,  247 
Froude,  11,   12,  33,   63,  66,  71, 

272,  312,  361,  364 
Fry,  Mrs.,  Ixix 

Fuller,  24,  334,  351,  352,  355,  356 
'  FURTHER  ORDER,'  199,  200,  361, 
362 
see  '  Order,  Other  ' 


OAGUENS,  353 
'  Galatians,  Epistle  to,'  248 
Gardiner,  Bp.,  22,  83,  141,  142 
Gasqutt,  Abbot,  38,  41 
Gavantw,  29 

0  C 


386 


INDEX 


Gee,  Dr.,  128, 129,  139,  140,  158, 
229,  230,  236,  239,  240,  245, 
246,  247,  254,  255,  257,  258, 
259,  260,  263,  265,  266,  316, 
323,  357,  358,  366,  372 

General  Pardon  Act  of  3  Edward 
VI.,  126,  127,  128,  308,  309, 
310,  333,  342,  343 

Geneva  in  England,  58,  163,  208, 
241 

George's  (St.)  in  the  East  Riots, 
Ixxviii,  Ixxx 

German  Lutheran  Ceremonial, 
cvii 

German  Lutherans  and  Henry 
VIII.,  8,  11 

Germans,  Anglican  Conference 
with,  8, 13 

GERMANY  ;  and  England,  67,  68 
Unification  of,  ci 

Gibbon,  55 

Gibson,  Dr.,  xiv,  xxxix,  3,  4,  15, 
16,  17,  23,  24,  28,87, 96,  97,  98, 
102,  108,  130,  135,  177,  178, 
179,  181,  182,  270,  273,  274, 
275,  279,  280,  282,  287,  289, 
325,  327,  345,  348,  354,  357, 
358,  359,  360,  370,  372 

Girdle,  198 

Gladstone,  Mr.,  quoted,  Iv,  Ivi, 
xc,  171,  173 

'Glorious  and  unquiet  Spirits,' 
166 

Gloucester,  Bp.  of,  see  '  Gibson, 
Dr.' 

Gloucester,  Duke  of,  see  'Hum- 
phrey ' 

'  Godly  Order,  A  Very,'  119 

Good  Friday  Ceremonies,  348 

Good  Friday  Homily,  23 

Goodrick,  Bp.,  44 

Gorham,  Mr.,  xxiii,  xxiv,  xxviii 

Gorliam  Case,  xxiii,  xxxiv 

GOSPEL 

in  English,  15,  18,  19,  23,  29, 

43,  61,  274,  275,  345,  347 
place  to  read,  160 
see  '  Epistle ' 

Grace,  falling  from,  9 

Greek  Orthodox  Ceremonial,  cvii 

Green  '  On  the  Thirty-nine 
Articles,'  313 

Greg,  W.  B.,  xcvi,  xcvii 


Gregory,  St.,  250,  252 
Grenestede,  Act  relating  to,  115, 

119,  304,  368 
Grey,  Lord  John,  236 
Grindall,  Abp.,  58,  157,  207,  208, 
209,   216,   222,   224,  225,  230, 
275,  328,  361,  365 
'  Guardian,  The,'  Letters  in,  79, 

363 

GUEST,  BP.,  222,  230,  247,  255, 

256,  257,  261,  262,  263,  366 

Letter    of,    231,    246,    247, 

254,  255, 257,  258, 259, 260, 

261,  263,  314,  315,  316,  366 


HACKET,  Dr.,  92 

Haddon,  Walter,  209,  249 

Hall,  Robert,  Ixviii 

Hall,  Spencer,  271,  272,  340,  359 

Hallam   quoted,    174,   231,   312, 

340,  364,  366 
Hannen,  Lord,  1,  154 
Hardcastle  (text-writer),  118,  297, 

306 

Hastings,  see  '  Warren  Hastings  ' 
Hayward,   '  Life   and    Reign   of 
Edward  VI.',    137,    158,    334, 
351,  356 

'  Head  of  the  Church,'  272 
Headstall,  198 

Heath,  Mr.  Dunbar,  xxvii,  xxviii 
Heath  (Dunbar)  Case,  xxvi 
Heaven,    Martyrs,   &c.    in,    251, 

260 
Henry  VI.,  change    in   form   of 

Statutes  under,  125 
HENRY  VIII.,  xxxiv,  2,  3,  5,  7,  8, 
11,  15,  16,  17,  57,  65,  66, 70,  71, 
172,  173,  174,    175,    177,  178, 
179,  181,    182,  273,   274,   275, 
278,  311,  347,  358,  359,  360 
and  Augsburg  Confession,  7, 

8,313 

to  Cranmer,  27 
and  Elizabeth,  see '  Elisabeth 

and  Henry  VIII.' 
and    German   Lutherans,  8, 

11,  313 
Injunctions  of,  31,  34,   265, 

357,  358,  372 

Liturgical  Reform,  under,  15, 
17 


INDEX 


387 


HENRY  VIII. : 

and  Mass  changed  to  Com- 
munion, 11,  12,  39 
last  Primer  of,  29,  31,  35 
Privilege    for     Epistles    and 

Gospels  in  English,  19 
Reformation    begun     under, 

48, 174 

Services  largely  in   English 
under,  15,  19,  24,  28,  37, 
273,  274,  358 
and  Solitary  Masses,  39 
Herbert  on  Latin  Prayer  Book, 

99,  100 

Herschell,  Lord,  xx 
Hertford,  Lord,  12 
Heylin,  138,  158,  282,  308,  327, 

334,  351,  352,  356 
Hezekiah    and  Brazen    Serpent, 

248 

High  Church  Party,  c 
High  Churchmen  and  Ritualists, 

xc 
Hilsey,  Bp.,  18,  19 

first  Compiler  present  Epistles 

and  Gospels,  19 
Primer  of,  18 

History  of  Anglican  Church,  328 
Hodges    (Rev.   G.    F.),    on    Bp. 
Guest  and  Article  XXVIII.,  257 
Holborn,  St.  Alban's,  xcix 
Holborn,  St.  Andrew's,  xcix 
'Holden'  in    the    Second  Year, 

293,  294,  295,  296,  297,  345 
Holdsivorth,  Dr.,  92 
Holy  Days,  9 
Holy  Water  Font,  93 
Homilies    adapted  from  Postils, 

23 
Hooper,  Bp.,  58,  162,   163,   207, 

275 

Horne,  Bp.,  222,  223,  224,  225 
Hospitals,  Power  to  Visit,  181 
'  Hours,'  The,  17,  18,  29,  34 
Hume,  Ixviii,  65 
Hume,  Martin,  271 
Humphrey,  Duke  of  Gloucester, 

xxxiii 

Huntingdon,  Countess  of,  Ixix 
Huntspill,    Vestments    worn    in 

1770  at,  363 

Hurst    (Berks),    Introduction    of 
'  Offertory '  at,  Ixxix 


ICONOCLASM    of    Puritans,    xxxii, 

363 

Ignatius  Loyola,  Ixx 
Illegal  Iconoclasm,  246,  266 
Images,  8,  10,  55,  56,  61,  62,  64, 
90,  183,  230,  244,  245,  246,  261, 
345 
Incense,   Ixxxvii,   cvii,   211,   273, 

276,  361 

Indulgences,  10,  55 
'  Influence  of  Authority  in  Matters 
of  Opinion,  The'  (G.  C.  Lewis), 
xvii 

Ingle,  Rev.  J".,  Ixxvii 
INJUNCTIONS,  76,  185,  232,  318, 
352,  355,  357 

for  Bidding  of  Beads,  178 
of  Edward  VL,  15,   23,    43, 
142,   143,   154,    179,    183, 
184,   185,    186,    187,    274, 
275,  326,  346,  353,  354 
Elizabethan,  192,  202,  227, 

264,  265,  266 
for  Communion  Bread,  2, 264, 

265 

for  Tables  within  Quire,  2 
of  Henry  VIIL,  31,  34,  265, 

357,  358,  372 
of   1547,  129,  139,  140,  141, 

158,  179 

Original  Copy,  141 
-»\    Parliamentary  Authority  for, 
141,  142, 143, 154, 158, 185, 
186,  187,  326,  336, 351,  352, 
353 
equivalent  to  Proclamation, 

34 

Innovations  in  Ceremonial  For- 
bidden (1548),  140,  187 
1  Institute,'  Meaning  of  word,  80, 

90,  343 
'  Institution  of  a  Christian  Man,' 

54 

'  In  Te,  Domine,  speravi,'  19 
INTENTIONS     OF     FKAMBES     OF 
STATUTES,  330,  336,  337,  338 
in  1662,  Ixiii,  337,  338 
see  '  Elizabeth,  Intentions  of ' 
Intercession  of  Saints,  10 
Interdict,  49,  53,  65 
Interpretation      (Unbroken)      of 
Ornaments    Rubric,    331,   334, 
335,  338 

c  o  2 


388 


INDEX 


Introit,  250 

'  In  Use,'  95,  131,  143,  190,  276, 

290,  291, 321, 323,  324, 326, 329, 

330,  356,  357,  364 
Invocation  of  Saints,  10,  18 
IRELAND,  232,  234 

Latin  Prayer  Book  used  in 

100 

Irenceus,  St.,  252,  253 
Irish  Act  of  Uniformity,  99,  101 
Irreligion,  Danger  of,  cvii 
Italy,  Unification  of,  ci 


JACKSON'S   Latin    Prayer    Book, 
101 

Jacobite  Ceremonial,  cvii 

James,  Lord  Justice,  lii 

Januarius,  St.  Augustine  to, 
248 

Jerome,  St.,  249,  250 

Jesuits,  70,  364 

Jeune,  Sir  Francis,  118, 304,  306, 
307,  317,  318,  324 

Jewel,  Bp.,  62,  240,  241,  242,  243, 
245,  274,  362 

John,  Bp.  of  Jerusalem,  St.  Epi- 
phanius  to,  249 

'John  Knox  and  the  Church  of 
England,'  by  Lorimer,  169 

Johnson's  '  Canons,'  198 

Journal  of  Edioard  VI.,  see  '  Ed- 
ward VI.,  Journal  of ' 

JUDGES, 

Election,  xvii 

on    Ecclesiastical     Matters, 

xxxiv,  319 

settle  form  of  Statutes  down 
to  Henry  VI.,  125 

Judicature,  Unification  of,  cii 

Judicial  Committee  of  Privy 
Council,  xxii,  xxiv,  xxvi,  xxviii, 
xxx,  xxxiii,  xxxv,  xxxix,  xlii, 
xliii,  xlvi,  xlvii,  xlviii,  li,  liii, 
Iv,  Ivii,  Ixii,  Ixiv,  xciv,  xcv,  74, 
76,  77,  84,  85,  86,  87,  91,  192, 
194, 195, 197, 199,  202,  203,  324, 
364 

Judicial  Decisions  on  Ornaments 
Rubric,  317,  319 

Justification  by  Faith,  9 

Justin  Martyr,  St.,  251,  252, 
253 


KELLY,  SIR  FITZROY,  xxxiv,  xlvii, 

xlviii,  xlix,  1,  li,  liv,  317 

not  a  '  Ritualist,'  li 
Kennaway,    Sir    John,   xv,    360, 

365 

Kent,  Protestants  in,  71,  272 
Khartoum,  266 
Kirkham,  Constitution  on  Divine 

Office,  30 
'  King  in  Chancery  '  not '  King  in 

Council,'  Ivii 

King  part  of  Parliament,  290 
Kitchener,  Lord,  266 
KNEELING   AT    COMMUNION,  Ixvi, 

Ixvii,  164,  165,  166,   167,   168, 

253,  259 

Guest  on,  253 
'  Kneeling,    Declaration   on,'    65, 

169 
Knolles,   Sir  Francis,  208,    221, 

238 
Knox,  John,  164,  165,  168,    169, 

186,  235 


LABOUR    Men    and     '  Ritualist  ' 

Laity,  Ixxxix 
LAITY: 

and  Divine  Office,  30 
financially  support    '  Ritual- 
ism,' xc 

'  Ritualist,'  Ixxxix 
Lambeth  Hearing,   The,   79,   81, 

85,  96,  112 

'Lansdowne  MSS.,'  102 
'  La  Reine  le  veult,'  117,  305 
Lasco,  John  a,  164 
Latin  Edition  of  Elizabethan  Act 
of  Uniformity,  16,  96,  97,  98, 
102,   104,   105,   107,   108,   324, 
349 

LATIN  PRAYER  BOOK,  97,  98,  106, 
107,  219,  249,  250,  264 
in    Trinity  College,   Dublin, 

99, 250 

used  in  Ireland,  100 
Latin  Services  turned  into  English 

17,32 

Laud,  Abp.,  Ixiv,  338,  363 
Lawless  Chapters,  xci 
Lay  Baptism,  194 
'  Learning,  The  New,'  18,  239 
Lectionary,  see  '  Lessons  ' 


INDEX 


389 


Leibnitz,  cv 

Leicester,  Earl  of,  209,  214,  221, 

223,  268,  364 
Leigh,  Theophilus,  363 
Lely,  J.  M.,  151,  193 
Leo  the  Iconoclast,  249 
1  Le  Eoi  le  veult,'  118,  806 
LESSONS  : 

Alterations  of,  106,  204 
in  English,  29,  274,  275 
Place  to  read,  160 
Letters  Patent  to  Parker,  106 
Leuris,  Sir  G.  Cornewall,  xv  65 
'  Liberty,'  Mill  on,  ciii 
Libraries  spoiled  and  destroyed, 

xxxii 

Liddell,  Westerton  v.,  xxviii, 
xxxiii,  1,  Hi,  74,  75,  84,  85,  141, 
160,  317,  335 

LIGHTS,  161,  186,  243,  244,  274, 
326 

Altar,  63,  154,  160,  183,  184, 
186,  210,  243, 244, 247, 273, 
278,  326,  355 
before  Images,  183,  186 
Two  only,  183,  184,  186 
Linen  Cloth  for  Table,  184,  353 
Lingard,  270 
LITANY  : 

Elizabethan  Additions,  104 
Elizabethan      Omission      of 

Rubric  from,  104 
in  English,   15,  17,  60,  273, 

274 
Omission  of  a  Suffrage  in,  64, 

103 
Liturgical  Reform  under  Henry 

VIIL,  15 
Lollards,  147 
London  Clergy,  206,  208 
Lopes,  Mr.,  xviii 
Lord's  Prayer  in  English,  60 
Lord's  Supper  commonly  called 

the  Mass,  122 
LORDS,  HOUSE  OF  : 

Committee  of   1640-41 ;    92, 

94,  95,  226,  228,  356,  357 
and  Judicial  Committee,  xliii 
Journals,     127,    333,    334; 

examined,  88 
Sittings  of,  81 
Lorimer,  Professor,  169 
Lorraine,  Cardinal  de,  63 


Loughborough,  Lord,  xxxv 
Lushington,  Dr.,  xxvi 
Luther,  3,  9,  10,  66 
Lutheran  Party,  7 
Lyndivood  on '  The  Divine  Office,' 
30 

MACAULAY,  Quotations  from,xxiv, 
Ixviii,  Ixix,  69,  174,  270,  312, 
364 

Mackonochie,  Martin  v.,  154,  155 
McNeile,  Dean,  xc 
1  Made,'  Meaning  of  the  word,  81, 
88,  90,  115,  290,  295,  298,  299, 
300,  303,  304, 318, 325, 326, 343, 
344 

'  Magna  Charta,'  153,  155 
Mahaffy,  Professor,  98 
Mahdi,  The,  266 
Maistre,  De,  cix,  111 
Majority   for  Old  Religion,  361, 

365 

MARGINAL  NOTES  to  1  Edw.  VI., 
c.  12 ;  368,  369,  370 

to  Statutes,  368 
Marian  Placemen,  233,  234 
Marian  Priests  conform,  72,  204, 

205,  272,  340 

MARRIAGE  OF  PRIESTS,  Act  for, 
Repealed,  90 

Elizabeth  and,  172 
Martin  v.  MacJconochie,  154,  155 
MARY  I,  3,  12,   57,   60,   64,  239, 
247,  254,  287,  360 
Act  of  Repeal  of,  89 
Requiem  Mass  for,  61,  340 
Mary,  Queen  of  Scots,  68 
Maskell,  25,  29,  99 
Mason,  Sir  John,  100 
Mastin  v.  Escott,  xxxiv,  194 
MASS,  179,  236,  250,  345 
Abolishing,  13 
Augsburg  Confession  and,  6 
Books,  44 
Ceremonial  of,    9,   14,    139, 

325,  345,  346,  348 
and  Communion,  11,  12,  40 
Elizabeth  and,  2,  3,  61,  172, 

274,  313 

Latin,  71,  236,  361 
Lord's     Supper,    commonly 

called,  122 
Priests,  162,  163 


390 


INDEX 


MASSES  : 

in  particular  places,  65 
Private,  9,  39 
'  Solitary,'  39 

Matins,  15,  24,  35,  122,  179,  273, 
274,  354 

Maule,  Mr.  Justice,  155 

Maxwell  on   Statutes,  124,   151, 
194 

May,  Dr.,  230 

May,  Sir  ErsUne,  332 

Melanchthon,  9 

'  Memoirs  of  Lord  Burleigh,'  68 

Merton     College     Library     de- 
stroyed, xxxii 

Methodism,  Ixix,  Ixx 

Metropolitan,  The,   1,  205,   212, 
215,  263,  264 

Middlesex,  Protestants  in,  71,  272 

Mill,  J.  S.,  xxi,  cii,  ciii 

Minimum  and  Maximum,  329 

Minority,  Royal  Acts  during,  142 

'  Miracles,  Feigned,'  &c.,  265 

Mirfield,  Conference  at,  xcviii 

'  Miserere,'  Exposition  of,  19 

MISSAL  : 

Roman  (Rubrics  in),  198 

Sarum,  42 

York  (Rubric  in),  197 

Missals,  Reform  of,  43 

Mixed  Chalice,  Ixxxvii 

Monasteries,  Clergy  of,  53 

Monasticism,  10 

Montague,  Bp.,  338 

'  Monumenta  Ritualia,'  25,  29 

More,  Sir  Thomas,  xxxiv 

Music  in  Services,  64 


NARES,  68 

Neal,  the  Puritan,  64 

'Necessary  Doctrine  and  Erudi- 
tion for  any  Christian  Man,'  54, 
56 

Netherlands,  67 

Neville,  Mr.  Justice,  xx 

'  New  Learning,  The,'  18,  239 

NEWMAN,  Cardinal,  Ixx,  Ixxi,  Ixxii, 
Ixxiii,  cviii,  172 

'  Anglican  Difficulties,'  Ixxi 

Noailles,  63 

Noncommunicating  Attendance, 
161,  250,  274 


Nonconformists,  207,  222 

Nonjurors,  363 

Nonuser,  Ixii,  Ixiii,  337,  338,  339, 

361,  363,  364,  366 
Norfolk,  Duke  of  (Attainder),  241 
NORTH,  Discontent  in,  61 
Rebellion  in,  175,  270 
North,  Lord  Keeper,  xxxv 
Northumberland,  Duke  of,  165 


OBSOLETE  Statutes,  102,  284 
Occasional   Services,  16,  24,   27, 

274,  358 

(Ecumenical  Councils,  171,  270 
'  Offertory,'  Ixxii,  Ixxix,  Ixxxv 
OFFICES 

Public,  17,  34,  358 
Private,  17,  34,  37,  358 
Oldmixon,  207,  209 
Omission  not  Prohibition,  xxxvii, 

161,  162 
Ongar,  Act  relating  to,  115,  119, 

304,  368 

'  Order  of  the  Communion,  The,' 
see '  Communion,  Order  of  the  ' 
OEDEE  IN  COUNCIL  (1627),  xliii 
(1878),  xliii,  xlvii,  xlix,  liv 
'  Order,  Further,'  199,  200,  361, 

362 
'Order,   Other,'    185,    205,    218, 

219,  223 
Ordinance  of  Parliament  of  1641, 

93,94 

Organ,  186,  239,  226 
OENAMENTS,  65,  75,  76,  87,  131, 
266,  328,   329,    345,  347,   353, 
363,  364 

Definite  Rule  for,  328,  329 
of  Emperor,  208 
of  First  Prayer   Book,   129, 
160,    161,    118,    318,   324, 
353 
of  1548,  139,  143,  158,  196, 

200,  323,  324,  326,  354 
of  '  First  and  Second  Year,' 

156,  323 

of  Second  Book,  183,  353 
by  virtue  of  25  Hen.  VIII., 

184 

OENAMENTS  CLAUSE  OF  ACT  OF 
UNIFORMITY,  96,  108,  111,  156, 
176,  187,  197,  218,  225,  259, 


INDEX 


391 


ORNAMENTS  CLAUSE  OF  ACT   OF 
UNIFORMITY  : 
263,  264,  265,   291,   294,   300, 

321,  323,  849,  359 

Latin  Version  of,  109, 324, 349 
ORNAMENTS  RUBRIC,  xiii,  Ixiii, 
Ixv,  xcv,  1,  16,  74,  75,  76,  86, 
93,  94,  95,  103,  108,  111,  115, 
117,  119,  129,  130,  134,  139, 
140,  159,  176,  181,  183,  184, 
187,  188,  190,  191,  199,  207, 
211,  212,  218,  219,  220,  222, 
228,  257,  259,  263,  264,  265, 
266,  276,  291,  293,  294,  299, 
300,  304,  305,  317,  320,  321, 

322,  323,   326,  329,    334,  345, 
350,  352,  353,    354,  356,  357, 
360,  363,  364,  370 

Caroline  Variation  in,  329 
Elisabeth's,  108,    109,    111, 
130,   131,    176,   203,  218, 
264,   276,    289,   329,    330, 
347,  354 

Oxford,  Bishop  of,  xv,  275,  289, 
362 


PAGEANTRY,  Edward  VI.,  fond  of, 
112 

Palls,  186,  247 

Palmer,  Sir  Wm.,  56,  57 

Pamphlets,  Elizabethan,  227,  228 

PAPACY 

'  Golden  Vestments  of,'  244 
Political  Power  of,  69,  232, 
237 

Papal  Supremacy,  see '  Supremacy 
of  Bishop  of  Home ' 

Papal  Usurpations,  48,  53,  70,  170 

Papists,  76,  223,  233, 234,  237,  242 

Pardon  Act,  see  '  General  Pardon 
Act1 

PARDON  IN  FIRST  UNIFORMITY  ACT 
not  general,  310 
see  '  Prisoners ' 

Pardons,  10,  55 

Paris,  Matthew,  Watt's  edition 
of,  190 

PARKER,  Abp.,  23,  102,  105,  106, 
107,  108,  208,  209,  210,  211, 
215,  216,  218,  219,  220,  221, 
222,  223,  224,  230,  255,  256, 
261,  264,  265,  314,  316,  320, 323 


PARKER,  Abp. : 

Letter  to  Cecil,  1,  107,  217 
Note  of  Differences  between 
Second  Book   and  Eliza- 
beth's, 103,  106,  107,  108 
quotes  in  1560  Act  of  Unifor- 
mity in  Latin,  105,  108 
Parkhurst,  243 
Parliament,    Authorised    by,  87, 

276,  289,  290,  293 
1  Parliament,  Authority  of,'  87,  91, 
93,  95,  97,  115,  129,  130,  131, 
140, 141,  143, 159, 184, 185, 186, 
188,  276, 287,  289,  290, 291, 292, 
293,  294,  295,  296,  297, 299, 301, 
303,  304,  317,  818, 323,  324, 326, 
330,  331,  334,  335,  344, 351,  353, 
354,  356,  357,  364 
PARLIAMENT,  King  a  part  of,  290 

must  not  alter  Rubrics,  xci 
PARLIAMENTARY  AUTHORITY 

for  Injunctions,  141, 142, 143, 
156,158,185,  186,187,326, 
336,  351,  352,  358 
for  '  Order  of  the  Commu- 
nion,'  138,   139,  143,  145, 
159,   188,   273,    274,    277, 
278,  279,  280, 281,  282,  283, 
286, 287,  288, 289, 320, 327, 
328,  330,  334,  364 
for    Second    Prayer    Book, 

doubtful,  xxx,  166 
Parliamentary  Ordinance  of  1641, 

93,94 

Parma,  Duchess  of,  67 
Parnell  Commission,  Lord  Her- 

scJiell  on,  xx 
Parry,  254 

'  Passed '  distinguished  from 
'  Made,'  88,  290,  295,  296,  298, 
300 

Pastoral  Staff,  160,  184 
Paten,  160, 161, 186, 266,  274, 326, 

337 

Patience  the  Remedy,  xcii 
Patrick,  Dr.,  62 
Pembroke,  Earl  of,  236 
PENTECOST,   Rouen    Custom  at, 
198 

See  '  Whitsunday ' 
Peter  Martyr,  xxx,  58, 59,  62,  161, 
166,  240,  242,  243, 244, 245, 246, 
255 


392 


INDEX 


Petition,  Acts  in  form  of,  116, 
118,  123,  124, 304, 305,  308, 309, 
310 

Petitionary  Form  of  First  Act  of 
Uniformity,  124,  128,  308,  309, 
310 

Petre,  Mr.  Secretary,  298 
Philip  of  Spain,  3,  60,  67,  270, 

271,  311,  313,  340 
Phillimore,  Sir  Bobert,  lii,  154 
Phillpotts,  Bp.,  Ixxxii,  Ixxxiii 
Philpot,  Archdeacon,  46 
PICTURES,  61 

see  '  Images ' 
Pilkington,  Bp.,  221,  230 
Pitt,  Mr.,  148,  366 
Planet,  198 

Political  Necessities  of  Elizabeth, 
2,  62,  67,  204, 220,  232, 237, 272, 
340 

POPE,  The,  9,  48,  51,  53,  65,  170. 
171,  172,  232,  237,  239,  272,  364 
and  Convocation,  49 
Excommunication  by,  53,  65, 

232 
Jurisdiction    repudiated    by 

Clergy,  53,  230 
Law  of,  49 
Offers  to  accept  Prayer  Book, 

341 

'  Popish  Garments,'  64 
Popish  Party,  7,  65,  70,  138,  233 
Portuases,  44 
Postils,  19,  20,  22,  23 
Poulton's  Case,  201 
'  Prsemunire,'  Statute  of,  154,  234 
PRAYER  BOOK,  First,  see  '  First 
Prayer  Book ' 
Chapter  on  Ceremonies,  347, 

348 

Complaint  of  Excessive  Cere- 
monies, 347 

Elizabethan,  97,  99,  101, 103, 
108,    192,    194,   200,   235, 
238,    254,    255,   256,   257, 
259,  260,  263,  273 
English,  71 

Founded  on  1545  Primer,  35 
Latin,  97,  98,  106,  107,  219, 
264,   349,  350;  in  Trinity 
College,   Dublin,  99,  250; 
used  in  Ireland,  100 
Pope  offers  to  accept,  341 


PRAYER  BOOK: 

Present,  192,  194,  203,  326 
Projected     Reformation     in 

(1640),  92 

Rubric  on  Tolling  Bell,  30 
Second,  xxviii,  xxix,  xxx,  1, 
60,  72,  76,  103,  108,  157, 
164,    165,    168,    169,    170, 
183,    192,    194,  204,   205, 
218,    240,    242,   245,   246, 
247,    255,    256,  257,   259, 
260,    261,    262,   263,   265, 
292,    311,    314,   315,   316, 
323,    341,    347,    360  ;     of 
Doubtful       Parliamentary 
Authority,     xxx  ;     Eliza- 
bethan    Review     of,     64, 
103,    106,    107,   108,  218, 
230,    258,    259,   260,   261, 
263,  314;   First  compared 
with,  230  ;  not  offspring  of 
Church  of  England,  xxx 
Prayers  for  the  Dead,  55,  162 
Prayers  before  Special  Images,  56 
Preachers,  Unlicensed,  60 
Prerogative,  265 
Prideaux,  Dean,  Ixv,  Ixix 
PrideattX)  Dr.,  92 
Prideaux,  Mr.,  Q.C.,  lii 
Priests  (Marian)  conform,  72,  204, 

205,  272,  340 
Priests'   Marriage  Act    repealed, 

90 

Primacy  of  Bp.  of  Rome,  9 
PRIMER,  17,  18,  29,  43 
in  English,  358 
Hilsey's,  18 
of  1545,  29,  31,  35 
see  '  Prayer  Book  ' 
Prisoners     mentioned     in     First 
Uniformity  Act,  85,    121,  123, 
124, 125,  126,  128,  299,  808,  310 
Private  Masses,  9,  39 
Privilege    by    Henry    VIII.   for 
Epistles  and  Gospels  in  Eng- 
lish, 19 

PRIVY  COUNCIL,  132,  134,  135, 
139,  158,  220,  232,  278,  279, 
280 

Letter  to  Bishops,  135,  139, 

278,  280,  281,  365 
See  '  Judicial  Committee ' 
Processionals,  25,  36,  347,  358 


INDEX 


393 


PROCESSIONS,  345,  346,  347 

Guest,  on,  249 
Proclamation : 

(Edwardian)    against    Inno- 
vations, 139,  179,  180 ;  for 
1  Order  of  his  Commission,' 
181, 132, 134, 135, 138, 276, 
277,  278,  279,  280,  288 
of  1569,  270 
under  Statutory  Service,  139, 

142,  143 
against  unlicensed  preaching, 

60 

Proclamation  Act,  141 
Protector,  Lord,   132,   134,    135, 
141,   180,   187,  277,   278,   279, 
280 

Protestant     Scandinavian    Cere- 
monial, cvii 
Protestants  in  Minority  in  1559, 

71,  204 
Prothero,  Mr.,  xv,  116,  271,  290, 

304,  340 
PSALMS,  Chanting,  xciii 

Times  on,  Ixxxi 
Pulpit,  326 
Pulpit  Coverings,  326 
Purchas  Case,    xc,  93,  192,  197, 
199,  200,  202, 211,  222, 226, 239, 
337 

Purgatory,  10,  55,  172,  251 
PURITANS,  lix,  59,  62,  63,  70,  73, 
92,  95,  157,  163,  168,  203,  204, 
205,  207,   208,   210,   216,   218, 
219,   220,   221,   222,   223,  224, 
226,   233,  238,   243,   244,   256, 
258,   259,   261,  264,   265,   266, 
272,  273,  276,  314,  362,  363 
Iconoelasm  of,  363 
Preachers,  Seminary  Priests 

as,  364 
Pusey,  Dr.,  xxvi 


QUARITCH'S,  First  Impression  of 
Elizabeth's  Book  at,  350 

Queen's  Bench,  Blunders  of  Court 
of,  xxxiv 

Queen's  College  Library  de- 
stroyed, xxxii 

'  Quemadrnodum  mos  erat,'  97, 
108,  109,  324,  349,  350 

Quignon,  41 


Quire,  Tables  within,  2 
Quirinus,  Steps  from  Temple  of, 
55 


RADICALS  and  'Ritualist'  Laity, 

Ixxxix 

'  Rationale,'  The  Henrician,  39 
REAL  PRESENCE,  The,  8,  9,  256, 
261,  313 

see '  Corporal  Presence,' '  Sub- 
stantial Presence ' 
'  Real  Property  Limitation   Act, 

1874,'  301 

Reception  in  Hands,  Guest  on,  253 
Reception  in  Mouth,  253,  261 
Reconciliation,  see  '  Rome  ' 
Redman's  Edition  of  Epistles  and 

Gospels,  19 
REFORMATION,  THE, 

begun  under  Henry   VIII. , 

15,  17,  48,  174 
English,  170, 171,  174 
in  1536,  54 
in  1547,  57 

Revolt  of  English  Nation,  48 
'  Reformation     Settlement,'    Au- 
thor's, xiii,  67,  97, 112, 119, 132, 
133,  270, 277, 284,  326, 352, 357, 
366 
RELIGION  : 

Decay  of,  363 

of  Elizabeth,  2, 12,  57, 66,  67, 

172,  174,  175 
Henry  VIII.  and,  5,  7, 57, 68, 

172,  175,  177 

Meaning  of  Word  in  Eliza- 
beth's time,  860 
Remedy  is  Patience,  xciv 
Remigius,  St.,  xcix 
Repeal  by   Implication,  Law  of, 

193,  196 

Repealing  Act  of  Mary  I.,  89 
Repealing  Statute  of  Edward  VI., 
146,  284, 285,  286,  368,  369, 370, 
373  (App.  B) 
Republicans,  58,  70 
Requiem  Mass  for  Mary  I.,  61 
RESERVATION  FOR  SICK,  cvii 

in  Latin  Prayer  Book,  219 
Returns,  see  '  Visitation  Returns  ' 
Revision    of    Rubrics    suggested 
against  Surplice  Wearers,  Ixxxii 


394 


INDEX 


Bevolutionists  in  Religion,  70, 219 
Reynolds,  Abp.,  199 
Ridley,  Bp.,  164 

Ridsdale    Case,   xli,    1,    li,    192, 
197,  199,  200,  202,  211,  222,226 
Ring,  Marriage,  160 
Ripon  Cathedral,  Cope  at,  xc 
RITES,  70 

or  Ceremonies,  Power  to  Or- 
dain, 1,  65,  106 
see  '  Ceremonies ' 
RITUAL,  Romish,  64,  65 

see      '  Ceremonies  '  :    '  Cere- 
monial ' 
'  Ritualism '  develops  from  Trac- 

tarianism,  Ixxxviii 
'  RITUALISTS  '  gain  nothing  from 
Establishment,  xc 
and  High  Churchmen,  xc 
and  Working  Classes,  xcvii 
supported  by  laity,  xc 
Robertson,  of  Brighton,  cviii,  cix 
Rochet,  103,  184,  199 
Rock,     Dr.,     'Church    of    Our 

Fathers,'  198 
'  Rocks  Ahead,'  by  W.  R.  Greg, 

xcvii 

Romanist  Seminary  Priests,  364 
Romanists   attend   Churches  till 

1570,  272,  341 
ROME  : 

Appeals  to,  53 
Bishop  of,  4,  9,  48,  55,  64 
Court  of,  49,  51 
Extortions  of,  51 
Obedience  to  See  of,  51 
Reconciliation  with,  276 
Supremacy  of,   see    '  Supre- 
macy' 

Romish  Ritual,  64,  65 
Rood,  93,  244 
Rood  Loft,  93,  361 
Rouen,  Canons  of,  198 
Royal  acts  during  Minority,  142 
ROYAL  ASSENT  : 

to  Acts,  89,  91,  112,  113,  115, 
117,  118,  295,  298, 299, 300 
301, 302,  304,  305,  306,  309, 
319,  325,  326,  332,  342,  344 
to  First  Uniformity  Act,  75, 
77,  79,  80,  81,  82,  84,  85, 
87,  90,  91,  111,  113,  114, 
125, 127, 128,  244,  309, 310, 


ROYAL  ASSENT  : 

332,  333,  334, 335,  336,  341, 
342,  343 

Evidence  of,  118 
put  an  end  to  Session,  Ixii, 

113,  332 
Royal     Commission,     The,     see 

'  Commission ' 

Royal  Commission  of  1689,  Ixiv 
Royal  Supremacy,  142,  172,  174, 

264,  270 

RUBRIC,  on  Baptism,  194,  195 
'  Black,'  65 
of  1559,  86,  87 
of  1603,  194 

Parliament  must  not  alter,  xci 
of  Prayer  Book  (First),  192 
of  Prayer  Book  on  Tolling 

Bell,  30 
Revision    suggested    against 

Surplice  Wearers,  Ixxxii 
of  Roman  Missal,  198 
of  York  Missal,  197 
Rubric,    Ornaments,    see  '  Orna- 
ments Rubric ' 
Rushworth,  xlv 
Russian  Ceremonial,  cvii 


SACRAMENT,  Disputation  in  Par- 
liament on,  83 

SACRIFICIAL  VESTMENTS,  337,  see 
'  Vestments ' 

St.  Alban's,  Holborn,  xcix 

St.  Aldwyn,  Lord,  xiv,  xv,  cix, 
133,  260,  272,  275,  276,  278, 
280,  282,  289,  291,  296,  299, 
323,  326,  327,  328,  331,  364, 
366,  370,  371 

St.  Andrew's,  Holborn,  xcix 

St.  Helier,  Lord,  see  Jevne,  Sir  P. 

St.  Leonards,  Lord,  xlvii 

St.  Paul's  Cathedral  Statutes,  198 

SAINTS  : 

Images  of,  183 
Intercession  of,  10 
Invocation  of,  10,  18 

SAMPSON,  243 

Deprivation  of,  206 

Sanderson,  Dr.,  92 

Sandys,  Abp.,  58,  62,  139,  140, 
156,  157,  158,  159,  244,  245, 
246,  254,  258,  261,  262,  263, 


INDEX 


395 


275,  314,   318,   319,   320,   321, 
322,  323,   325,   334,   351,   355, 
356,  364 
SARUM  : 

Books,  346 

Breviary,  Reform  of,  in  1516, 

42  ;  in  1541,  43 
Missal,  Reform  of,  in  1518, 

42 

Use  made  obligatory,  44 
'  Scala  Cceli,'  55 
Scotland,  68,  69,  186,  232,  236 
Second  Book  of  Homilies,  23 
SECOND  PRAYER  BOOK,  see '  Prayer 
Book,  Second ' 
Deficiencies  of,  1,  242,  262, 

263 

'  SECOND  YEAR,  THE,'  xiii,  16,  71, 
72,  74,  75,  77,  80,  81,  84,87,  91, 
93,  95,  97,  109,  111,  114,  115, 
119,  128,  129,  130,  131,  139, 
156,  177,  184,  186,  187,  188, 
189,  190,  192,  196,  264,  276, 
289,  290,  291,  292,  294,  295, 
296,  297,  299,  301,  303,  304, 
317,  318,  319,  321,  323,  324, 
326,  331,  334,  335,  336,  344, 
352,  353,  354,  859,  364 

Ceremonial  of,  70,  72,  74,  91, 

109,  131,  323 

Meaning  of,  Judicially  dis- 
cussed, 317,  318,  319,  335 
Selborne,  Lord,  xvii,  xxi,  xxxv, 

xli,  xlii,  xliii 
Seminary  Priests,  364 
Serjeants'  Inn,  xlv 
Service  Books,  Issue  of  old,  ceases, 

43 
Services,  Occasional,  16,  24,  27, 

274 
SESSION  : 

Acts  cited  from  first  year  of, 

297,  298,  301 
date  from  first  day  of,  120, 

121,  297,  301,  307,  310 
Royal  Assent  put  an  end  to, 

Ixii,  112,  113,  332 
Sharington,  Sir  Thomas,  83 
Shaxton,  Bp.,  44 
Sherborne,  Bp.,  54 
Shipmoney  Case,  xlvi 
Shoreditch,  St.  Leonard's,  Ixxxi 
Shrines,  183 


Sidwell's  (St.),  Exeter,  Ixxv,  Ixxvii 

Silva,  De,  62 

'  Simancas  Documents,'  2,  4,  61, 

62,  66,  270,  301,  312,  313,  359 
Simpson,  Flamank  v.,  154 
Sitting     at     Holy     Communion, 

164 
Six  Articles,  The,  3,  147, 177, 178, 

359 
SMITH,   SIR    THOMAS,    230,    231, 

235,  239,  290i 

Chapel  of,  239 
Soames,  209,  221 
'  Soit  fait  comrne  il   est  desire,' 

118,  306 

'  Solitary '  Masses,  39 
Somerset,  Anti-Genevans  in,  163 
Somerset,   Duke   of,   12,  75,   78, 

132,  133,   134,   135,   141,   180, 

187,  280,  365 
Spain,  67,  69,  272 
Spanish  Ambassador  and  Eliza- 
beth, 2,  3,  4,  8,  56,  60,  61,  62, 

66,  176,  177,  178,  204,  231,  238, 

270,  271,  311,  312,  340,  358 
Sparrow's  (Bp.)  Collections,  214, 

215 

Spilman,  Mr.,  166 
Staff,  Pastoral,  160,  184 
'Standard,  The,'  on  Tractarian 

Movement,  Ixxi 
Stanley,  Bp.,  Ixxxii 
Stanley,  Dean,  Ixxx 
Star  Chamber,  Court  of,  xlv 
'  State  in  its  Relations  with  the 

Church,  The,'  172 
State  Papers,  271,  340 
STATUES,  61.    See  '  Images ' 
STATUTE : 

1  Car.  I.,  c.  7,  112 

12  Car.  II.,  c.  1,  113,  332 

22  &  23  Car.  II.  c.  1, 113,  332 

1  Edw.  VI.,  c.  1,  40, 133, 137, 
138, 143, 153, 188,  278,  282, 
283,  327,  330,  335;  c.  12, 
44,  46,  47,  146,  147,  148, 
149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 
155, 159, 283, 284,  285,  286, 
328,  344, 366,  368,  369,  370, 
371,  373  (App.  B.) 

2  &  3  Edw.  VI.,  c.  1,  187  ; 
c.  18,  803 

3  &  4  Edw.  VI.,  c.  14,  308 


396 


INDEX 


STATUTE : 

5  &  6  Edw.  VI.,  c.  1,  77,  84, 
86,  87,  90,  291,  303,  318, 
336,  344 ;  c.  8,  297 ;  c.  11, 
295 ;  c.  14,  294 
7  Edw.  VI.,  c.  2,  294 ;  c.  6, 
293  ;  c.  7,  302 

1  Eliz.  c.  1,  287;  c.  2,  291, 
292 ;  c.  9,  129,  304 

5  Eliz.  c.  8,  129 
29  Eliz.  c.  6,  301 
35  Eliz.  c.  1,  18,  301 

2  Hen.  V.,  stat.  1,  c.  7,  146, 
367,  369,  375 

23  Hen.  VIII.,  c.  20,  52 

24  Hen.  VIII.,  c.  12,  xxxiv, 
xxxix,  Ivii,  155 

25  Hen.  VIII.,  c.  14,  367,  369 ; 
c.  19,  Ivii,  46, 155, 184, 188, 
287,  288,  330, 351,  353,  354, 
355 

26  Hen.  VIII.,  c.  1,  142 
28  Hen.  VIII.,  c.  7,  138 

31  Hen.  VIII.,  c.  8, 147, 187  ; 
c.  14,  146,  367,  369 

32  Hen.  VIII.,  c.  26,  44,  46, 
47,  144,  146,  147,  148,  149, 
151,  153, 155, 158, 159,  283, 
284, 285,  286,  289,  328,  330, 
355,  366,  367,  371 

33  Hen.  VIII.,  c.  21,  82 

34  &  35  Hen.  VIIL,  c.  1,  146, 
367  ;  c.  3,  302 

35  Hen.  VIIL,  c.  1, 138 ;  c.  5, 
146,  178,  367,  369 ;  c.  19, 
sect.  2,  288 

1  Mary,  c.  2,  367;    stat.  3, 
c.  7,  297,  298 ;  c.  10,  115, 
117,  119,  120,  304 
5  Bic.  II.  stat.  2,  c.  5,  146, 

367,  369,  375 
Statute  Law  Eevision  Act,  1863, 

284 

STATUTE  LAW  REVISION   under 
George  III.,  148,  366  ;  under 
Victoria,  148, 149,  284 
Statute,  see  '  Act ' 
Statute  of  Citations,  154 
Statute  of  Prsemunire,  154 
STATUTES 

cannot  become  obsolete,  152 
Judges  settle   form  down  to 
Henry  VL,  125 


STATUTES : 

Marginal  Notes  to,  368 
Title  of,  125,  309 

'  Statutes  at  Large,'  Authority  of, 
147,  152,  284,  367,  368,  370, 
371 

1  Statutes  of  the  Realm,'  366,  367, 
368,  371 

Statutes  of  St.  Paul's  Cathedral, 
198 

Statutory  form  of  Canons,  287, 
288,  330 

Stephens,  Dr.,  201,  362 

Stole,  160 

Strafford,  Lord,  Trial  of,  xliv 

Strickland's  (Miss)  '  Lives  of  the 
Queens,'  63,  64 

Strype,  7,  12,  27,  39,  59,  156,  210, 
213,  214, 216,  221,  225,  230, 231, 
244,  254, 256, 258,  265,  314, 315, 
316,  317,  325,  331,  356,  366 

Stubbs,  Bp.,  Iv 

Sub-deacon,  243 

Substantial  Presence,  8,  261 

Suaeley,  Lord,  83,  343 

Sunday  Observance,  cvii 

Superstitious  Monuments,  &c., 
265 

Supremacy  Act,  142,  155,  188, 
290 

Supremacy,  Oath  of,  172 

Supremacy  of  Bp.  of  Borne,  9,  48, 
53,  171,  172,  174,  233,  270,  272, 
341 

Supremacy,  see  '  Boyal  Supre- 
macy ' 

Supreme  Court  of  Judicature  Act, 
xviii 

SURPLICE,  xxviii,  Ixiv,  Ixv,  Ixvi, 
Ixxxv,  Ixxxvii,  xciii,  cvii,  93, 103, 
160,  183,  184,  190,  192,  196, 
197,  198, 199, 208,  243, 249, 258, 
337,  338;  and  Alb,  197,  198, 
199;  and  Chasuble,  197,  198, 
199,  202;  in  Pulpit  forbidden 
by  Bishops,  xciii;  Biots  over, 
Ixxv,  Ixxvii,  Ixxx 

Synodals,  see  '  Canons,  Pre-Befor- 
mation' ; '  Constitutions,  Provin- 
cial ' 

'  System  of  Logic,'  Mill's,  xxii 

Swiss  Beformers  an&EdivardVI., 
xxxii 


INDEX 


397 


TABLE  : 

Altar -wise,  161 
Linen  Cloth  for,  184,  353 
on  Trestles,  362 
within  Quire,  Injunction  for,  2 
See  '  Altar ' 

Talbot,  Mr.,  xv,  296,  365 
Tapers  before  Shrines  and  linages, 

183,  186,  345 
TAVEENER : 

Edition  of  Epistles  and  Gos- 
pels, 19,  20,  22,  43 
Postils,  19,  20,  22,  23 
Temple,  Abp.,  96 
Ten  Articles,  The,  5,  313 
Tertullian,  251,  253 
Tierce,  Custom  at   Pentecost  at 

Rouen,  198 
Tierney,  146,  231 
'  TIMES,  THE  ' : 

on^Chanting  Psalms  at  Shore- 

ditch,  Ixxx 

on  Exeter  Riots,  Ixxv,  Ixxvii 
on     Exeter     and     London 

Bishops,  Ixxxiii 
on  '  Offertory,'  Ixxii,  Ixxxv 
on  St.   George's-in-the-East 

Riots,  Ixxviii 

on  Surplice,  Ixxxv,  Ixxxvii 
on    Tractarian     Movement, 

Ixxi,  Ixxii 

Tithe  Acts  of  Henry  FIJI.,  154 
Title  of  Statutes,  125,  309 
TKACTAEIANISM 

and    Bishops'  Charges,  Ixx, 

Ixxxviii 
develops    into    '  Ritualism,1 

Ixxxviii 
universally  restores  Surplice, 

Ixiv 

Transubstantiation,  252,  313 
Trial  by  Battle,  152 
Trollope  to  Walsingham,  100 
Tunicle,  160,  192,  197,  202 
Tunstall,  Bp.,  9 
Twisse,  Dr.,  92 

Unification  of  Judicature,  cii 
UNIFORMITY,  Acts  of.    See  under 
•Act' 

First  Act  of,  Alleged  'Ur- 
gency '  for,  77,  84,  85,  125, 
318,  336 


UNIFORMITY  : 

in  Religion  Bane  of  Church, 
cvi 

Passion  for,  cii,  civ 
Universities  and  Papal  Jurisdic- 
tion, 53 

Use,  see  '  In  Use  ' 
Uses,  Diocesan,  civ 
Ussher,  Abp.,  92,  356 
Utenhovius,  8,  164 


Variation  of  Caroline  Ornaments 
Rubric  from  Elizabethan,  329 

Vatican,  The,  70 

VaHtrollier's  Latin  Prayer  Book, 
101 

Venetian  Ambassador,  313,  348 

Venetian  State  Papers,  313 

Versions  of    Ornaments  Rubric, 
86,  329 

VESTMENTS,   xxviii,   li,  Ixii,  Ixiii, 
Ixiv,  cvii,  64,  93,  94,  103,  160, 
161,  184,   190,   192,   197,   198, 
199,   200,  202,  211,  239,   244, 
249,  255,  256,   266,    324,  325, 
329,  336,   337,   838,  339,  355, 
357,  361,  363 
Gticst  on,  249 
see    '  Chasuble,'     '  Disuser,' 

'  Non-user ' 

worn  at  Huntspill  in  1770, 
363 

Vestures,  Origin  of  Ecclesiastical, 
208 

Veto,  Bishop's,  xcii 

Veto,  Prerogative  of,  88,  290,291, 
344 

1  Viperma  est     expositio     qua 
corrodit  viscera  textus,'  201 

Virginals,  239 

Visitation  Returns  before  Adver- 
tisements, 362 

1  Voyages  Liturgiques  de  France," 
198 


Wafer  Bread,  205,  218,  261,  264, 

265,  362 
Waite,  Dr.,  92 
Wales,  Discontent  in,  61 
WalsingJtam,  100,  209,  238 
Warde,  Dr.,  92 


398 


INDEX 


Wards,  Court  of,  xlv 

Warren  Hastings,  Trial  of,  xliii 

Warwick,  Earl  of,  209 

'  Was,'   Meaning    in    Ornaments 

Rubric,  97 
Watkin   Williams,   Mr.  Justice, 

xix 

Watt,  Eev.  W.,  190 
Week-ends,  cvii 
'  Were,'   Meaning  in  Ornaments 

Rubric,  95 
Wesley,  Ixix,  xcii 
Westbury,  Lord,  xliii,  xlviii 
Westerton     v.    Liddell,    xxviii, 

xxxiii,  1,  lii,  74,  75,  84,  85,  141, 

160,  317,  335 

Westminster  Abbey  Library  de- 
spoiled, xxxii 
Weston,  Dr.,  46 
WJiarton's   'Law   Lexicon,'  151, 

193 
'  Whip  with  Six  Strings,'  The,  177, 

178,  359 
Whitehead,  230 
Whitsunday,  •  3  Edward  VI.,'  85, 

122,  306,  307,  308,  310 


Wliittingliam,  Dean,  222 
WitJiers,  George,  205 
WOLF'S  Latin  Prayer   Book,  99, 
101,  351 

Publication     of     Advertise- 
ments, 214 
Wood,  Armigail,  236 
Wordsworth,  Dr. Christopher,  363 
WORKING  CLASSES  and  Christian 
Creed,  xcv 

And  Ritualists,  xcvii 
Wynford,  Lord,  195 


YOKE,  Convocation,  53 

Diocese,  Old  Ceremonial  in 

(1570),  361,  365 
Missal,  Rubric  in,  197 
Service  Books,  346 


Zurich,  242,  245 

'Zurich   Letters,'    62,   205,   223, 

225,  242, 243, 244, 246, 258,  275, 

276 


PRINTED   BY 

8POTTIBWOODE   AND  CO.  LTD.,  NEW-STREET  SQUARE 
LOS  DOS 


X 


A     000179129     2 


